Robert Mahaffrey
`
`1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CASE NO. IPR2015-01167
`
`PATENT NO. 8,717,758
`
` 6 --------------------------------
`
` 7 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION and
`
` 8 ACCO BRANDS USA LLC,
`
` 9
`
` 10 v.
`
` 11
`
`Petitioners
`
` 12 THINK PRODUCTS INC.,
`
` 13
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` 14 --------------------------------
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
`CASE NO. IPR2015-01168
`
`PATENT NO. 8,837,144
`
` 18 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION and
`
` 19 ACCO BRANDS USA LLC,
`
` 20
`
` 21 v.
`
` 22
`
`Petitioners
`
` 23 THINK PRODUCTS INC.,
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`ACCO Brands
`Exhibit 1023
`ACCO Brands v. Think Products
`IPR2015-01168
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 1 of 139
`3/21/2016
`
`
`
`1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CASE NO. IPR2015-01167
`
`PATENT NO. 8,717,758
`
` 6 --------------------------------
`
` 7 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION and
`
` 8 ACCO BRANDS USA LLC,
`
` 9
`
` 10 v.
`
` 11
`
`Petitioners
`
` 12 THINK PRODUCTS INC.,
`
` 13
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` 14 --------------------------------
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
`CASE NO. IPR2015-01168
`
`PATENT NO. 8,837,144
`
` 18 ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION and
`
` 19 ACCO BRANDS USA LLC,
`
` 20
`
` 21 v.
`
` 22
`
`Petitioners
`
` 23 THINK PRODUCTS INC.,
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`ACCO Brands
`Exhibit 1023
`ACCO Brands v. Think Products
`IPR2015-01168
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 1 of 139
`3/21/2016
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`2
`
` 1 --- This is the deposition of ROBERT MAHAFFEY,
`
` 2 taken before a court reporter at the Renaissance
`
` 3 Toronto Downtown Hotel, One Blue Jay Way, Toronto,
`
` 4 Ontario, Canada, M5V 1J4, on the 21st day of March,
`
` 5 2016.
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
`----------
`
`REPORTED BY: CONNIE A. HOLTON, CSR
`
` 9 A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` 10 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PETITIONER:
`
` 11 Michael R. Weiner, Attorney at Law
`
` 12 Tron Fu, Attorney at Law
`
` 13 Marshal Gerstein Borun LLP
`
` 14 233 South Wacker Drive, 6300 Willis Tower
`
` 15 Chicago, IL 60606-6357
`
` 16 312-474-9560 Email: mweiner@marshalllp.com
`
` 17
`
` 18 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` 19 John F. Vodopia, Attorney at Law
`
` 20 Edwin D. Schindler, Attorney at Law
`
` 21 191 New York Avenue
`
` 22 Huntington, NY 11743
`
` 23 631-673-7555 ext 128 Email: jvodopia@gmail.com
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 2 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`3
`
` 1 ALSO PRESENT: Eric Lazarus
`
` 2 Peter Allen
`
` 3
`
` 4 ---------------
`
` 5
`
` 6 I N D E X
`
` 7 WITNESS: ROBERT MAHAFFEY
`
` 8 PAGE
`
` 9 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINER..... 4
`
` 10 RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. VODOPIA....... 113
`
` 11 RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINER.. 116
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
` 15 NUMBER/DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
`
` 16 A: Simplified Explanation of Findings 115
`
` 17 Provided in the IPR. Prepared by Rob
`
` 18 Mahaffey in Support of Findings in
`
` 19 IPR. Last updated 03/17/2016.
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 3 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`4
`
` 1 --- Upon commencing at 8:37 a.m.
`
` 2 ROBERT MAHAFFEY, Affirmed
`
` 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 4 Q. Good morning.
`
` 5 A. Good morning.
`
` 6 Q. My name is Michael Weiner. I
`
` 7 represent ACCO Brands in Inter Partes Review
`
` 8 proceedings before the U.S. patent and trademark
`
` 9 office. Would you state your name, please?
`
` 10 A. Robert Mahaffey, or Rob Mahaffey.
`
` 11 Q. And where do you live, Mr.
`
` 12 Mahaffey?
`
` 13 A. I live in Vancouver, British
`
` 14 Columbia.
`
` 15 Q. And where are you employed?
`
` 16 A. I am employed currently at a
`
` 17 company called Douglas Lighting Controls, a
`
` 18 subsidiary of Panasonic Lighting Americas.
`
` 19 Q. Have you ever had your deposition
`
` 20 taken before, Mr. Mahaffey?
`
` 21 A. No, sir.
`
` 22 Q. You understand that you're
`
` 23 testifying under oath today?
`
` 24 A. Yes, sir.
`
` 25 Q. And you understand that the court
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 4 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`5
`
` 1 reporter will be recording all of my questions and
`
` 2 all of your answers today?
`
` 3 A. Yes, sir.
`
` 4 Q. You also understand that your
`
` 5 testimony is being used in connection with
`
` 6 proceedings that are held before the U.S. patent
`
` 7 and trademark office?
`
` 8 A. Yes, sir.
`
` 9 Q. Is there anything that would
`
` 10 interfere with your ability to testify fully and
`
` 11 completely today, and truthfully?
`
` 12 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
`
` 13 Q. Do you understand that the patent
`
` 14 office rules prohibit you from discussing your
`
` 15 testimony with counsel until after your
`
` 16 cross-examination deposition is completed?
`
` 17 A. If that's the case, yes.
`
` 18 Q. I hand you that.
`
` 19 Mr. Mahaffey, I've handed you what's
`
` 20 been marked Exhibit No. 5 in Inter Partes
`
` 21 Proceedings No. IPR 2015-1167. Do you recognize
`
` 22 this as the declaration you provided for Think
`
` 23 Products in connection with the IPR proceeding?
`
` 24 A. Let me take a look.
`
` 25 (Witness reads document)
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 5 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`6
`
` 1 Yes, this is correct.
`
` 2 Q. And that's your signature at the
`
` 3 bottom of page 16?
`
` 4 A. That is my signature, correct.
`
` 5 Q. This declaration was submitted in
`
` 6 connection with an Inter Partes Review proceeding
`
` 7 in which the patent office is reviewing U.S. patent
`
` 8 No. 8,837,144.
`
` 9 A. The '114 patent, yes.
`
` 10 Q. And you refer to that by the '144
`
` 11 patent as --
`
` 12 A. Yes.
`
` 13 Q. Do you agree that the identical
`
` 14 declaration was submitted as Exhibit 6 in an IPR of
`
` 15 Think Products patent 8,717,758?
`
` 16 A. So I do understand that there's
`
` 17 two pieces of IP, and I believe it is the identical
`
` 18 declaration used in both proceedings.
`
` 19 Q. And the other patent you refer to
`
` 20 that as the '758.
`
` 21 A. '758, yes.
`
` 22 Q. If I refer to your declaration
`
` 23 today, or to a particular paragraph of your
`
` 24 declaration you understand that I will be referring
`
` 25 to the declarations filed in both IPR proceedings?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 6 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`7
`
` 1 A. Yes, I understand.
`
` 2 Q. That way I won't have to ask you
`
` 3 all the same questions two times.
`
` 4 A. Makes sense.
`
` 5 Q. You were engaged by Think Products
`
` 6 to serve as a witness in these IPR matters, right?
`
` 7 A. That's correct, yes.
`
` 8 Q. And how did that engagement come
`
` 9 about?
`
` 10 A. So, in particular in providing
`
` 11 this declaration, or -- can you just clarify the
`
` 12 question? Is it about how did I come to --
`
` 13 MR. SCHINDLER: I object. What's the
`
` 14 relevance of that?
`
` 15 How is that relevant?
`
` 16 MR. WEINER: Your objection is noted on
`
` 17 the record. I don't need to respond that.
`
` 18 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 19 Q. Let me restate the question. I'm
`
` 20 asking you about how you got engaged to be an
`
` 21 expert witness in connection with the IPR
`
` 22 proceedings. Could you briefly explain how that
`
` 23 engagement came about?
`
` 24 A. I believe it was Peter contacting
`
` 25 me and retaining me for my services to provide a
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 7 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`8
`
` 1 reading on the prior art that was used in the IPR.
`
` 2 Q. And you're referring to Peter
`
` 3 Allen, the named inventor of the patent?
`
` 4 A. That's correct, yes.
`
` 5 Q. And when did Mr. Allen contact you
`
` 6 in connection with the IPR proceedings?
`
` 7 A. It would have been later in 2015 I
`
` 8 believe. So maybe the second or third quarter in
`
` 9 the calendar year. More likely in the third.
`
` 10 THE REPORTER: I need to stop you.
`
` 11 --- Off-the-record discussion
`
` 12 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 13 Q. So you were saying that in late
`
` 14 2015 you were contacted by Mr. Allen?
`
` 15 A. In particular to provide expert
`
` 16 testimony as it relates to this document that I
`
` 17 provided, yes.
`
` 18 Q. But you knew Mr. Allen before that
`
` 19 time, correct?
`
` 20 A. That's correct, yes.
`
` 21 Q. And then in the time period when
`
` 22 Mr. Allen contacted you in late 2015 concerning the
`
` 23 IPR proceedings, did you also talk to counsel for
`
` 24 Think Products?
`
` 25 MR. SCHINDLER: Objection to relevancy.
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 8 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`9
`
` 1 THE DEPONENT: Not directly, to the
`
` 2 best of my knowledge. Maybe indirectly.
`
` 3 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 4 Q. When did you first speak directly
`
` 5 to counsel for Think Products?
`
` 6 A. I can't recall a specific period
`
` 7 of time, but it would be perhaps after that.
`
` 8 Q. So probably some time in 2016?
`
` 9 A. I mean, end of the calendar year.
`
` 10 So some time -- there was some conversation, but I
`
` 11 think it would have been, like I say, probably in a
`
` 12 two quarter period. It would be some time again
`
` 13 maybe in the third or fourth, maybe early 2016.
`
` 14 That's the best I can recall.
`
` 15 Q. And then you told Mr. Allen that
`
` 16 you would be available to serve as a witness?
`
` 17 A. Correct, yes.
`
` 18 Q. At the time you were engaged were
`
` 19 you advised that you needed to be available for a
`
` 20 deposition in the United States?
`
` 21 MR. SCHINDLER: Objection to relevancy.
`
` 22 It's a continuing objection.
`
` 23 THE DEPONENT: No.
`
` 24 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 25 Q. At the time you were engaged by
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 9 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`10
`
` 1 Think Products did you advise Think Products that
`
` 2 you would be available for a deposition in the
`
` 3 United States?
`
` 4 A. I understood from the proceedings,
`
` 5 the requirements of the proceeding in an IPR that I
`
` 6 would have to provide a deposition. My
`
` 7 understanding is like in most cases regarding IP
`
` 8 experts witnesses may not be available in the
`
` 9 United States, and the process allows for foreign
`
` 10 depositions to be taken which I was available for.
`
` 11 MR. SCHINDLER: There's also an
`
` 12 objection that this issue was raised by the board
`
` 13 and the board ruled that the deposition could be
`
` 14 taken outside the United States and taken here in
`
` 15 Toronto.
`
` 16 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 17 Q. When did you learn that you would
`
` 18 not be available for a deposition in the United
`
` 19 States?
`
` 20 A. So my status and my ability to
`
` 21 travel has been -- not been an issue with relevance
`
` 22 to this case. So I have known that I wouldn't be
`
` 23 able to travel to the United States. But, again,
`
` 24 my understanding of the process itself is that as
`
` 25 in all IP cases where expert testimony may be
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 10 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`11
`
` 1 provided by someone from a foreign country is a
`
` 2 process to handle it. So it was never really
`
` 3 raised or made an issue of. It was more to do so
`
` 4 with in order to provide expert testimony I just
`
` 5 happen to reside in Canada and my travel ability
`
` 6 right now is such that I cannot travel to the
`
` 7 United States.
`
` 8 Q. And you were aware of that for a
`
` 9 period of time, that you weren't able to travel
`
` 10 into the United States?
`
` 11 MR. SCHINDLER: Same objection.
`
` 12 THE DEPONENT: I mean it's resolvable,
`
` 13 but, yes, I'm aware right now currently, right,
`
` 14 that I would have to do something in order for me
`
` 15 to travel to the United States.
`
` 16 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 17 Q. And you were aware of that before
`
` 18 you were engaged by Think Products in late 2015,
`
` 19 right?
`
` 20 A. Correct.
`
` 21 Q. How are you being compensated by
`
` 22 Think Products for your work on these IPR matters?
`
` 23 A. It's a flat rate. Hourly fee.
`
` 24 Q. And how much is the flat rate that
`
` 25 you're being paid?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 11 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`12
`
` 1 A. 375 U.S. an hour.
`
` 2 Q. 375 U.S. dollars?
`
` 3 A. Correct.
`
` 4 Q. How much time have you spent
`
` 5 working on these IPR matters?
`
` 6 A. Say in that timeframe that I
`
` 7 provided I would estimate it's about 100 hours,
`
` 8 more or less.
`
` 9 Q. About 100 hours?
`
` 10 A. Correct.
`
` 11 Q. And you're being paid a total of
`
` 12 $375.00 for the 100 hours worth of work?
`
` 13 A. I'm being paid $375 an hour.
`
` 14 Q. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I
`
` 15 thought you said it was a flat rate.
`
` 16 A. Well, the fee's flat rate.
`
` 17 There's not a change to the fee based on complexity
`
` 18 or anything else, but it's an hourly rate.
`
` 19 Q. Hourly rate of $375.00 an hour?
`
` 20 A. Correct, yes.
`
` 21 Q. And about 100 hours have been
`
` 22 spent so far?
`
` 23 A. Roughly, yes.
`
` 24 Q. So it's been about $37,500 that
`
` 25 you've been paid so far?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 12 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`13
`
` 1 A. Yes.
`
` 2 Q. Can you briefly describe your
`
` 3 educational background after high school?
`
` 4 A. Sure. I just want to make sure
`
` 5 that I...
`
` 6 Q. Do you need to refer to your
`
` 7 declaration to see what you have there?
`
` 8 A. No. I remember the declaration.
`
` 9 It will be consistent with what -- can you just ask
`
` 10 the question again, please?
`
` 11 Q. Okay. The question was could you
`
` 12 briefly describe your educational background?
`
` 13 A. My educational background. So I'm
`
` 14 a mechanical engineer. I just want to check the
`
` 15 dates. I graduated from the University of British
`
` 16 Columbia with a degree in applied science in 2003.
`
` 17 Q. Now, I see you're referring to
`
` 18 some paper materials there? Can you describe what
`
` 19 you're referring to?
`
` 20 A. It's my -- basically I've just
`
` 21 highlighted for myself just some key takeaways. So
`
` 22 just my educational level, experience, etcetera, in
`
` 23 preparation for this.
`
` 24 Q. Are those notes that you prepared?
`
` 25 A. Correct, yes.
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 13 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`14
`
` 1 Q. Did counsel assist in preparing
`
` 2 those notes?
`
` 3 A. No, sir.
`
` 4 Q. I request from counsel can I get a
`
` 5 copy of the notes the witness is referring to?
`
` 6 MR. VODOPIA: I guess to the court
`
` 7 reporter as well. Give one to each.
`
` 8 What's the last exhibit that you're
`
` 9 going to introduce? We'll mark this as a further
`
` 10 exhibit?
`
` 11 MR. WEINER: Let me take...
`
` 12 No, we'll review this, but we don't
`
` 13 want to mark that as an exhibit at this time.
`
` 14 MR. VODOPIA: We would like to mark it
`
` 15 as an exhibit at this time.
`
` 16 MR. WEINER: No. We object to that.
`
` 17 Your opportunity to put evidence in the record is
`
` 18 not --
`
` 19 MR. VODOPIA: Give it back then.
`
` 20 MR. WEINER: No. We're going to review
`
` 21 that. And we're entitled to see that, but we're
`
` 22 not going to put that in the record.
`
` 23 MR. VODOPIA: You can object, but we're
`
` 24 putting it into the record. You got it, it's in
`
` 25 the record.
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 14 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`15
`
` 1 MR. WEINER: If you want to mark it as
`
` 2 an exhibit you can mark it as an exhibit and we
`
` 3 will object to it as untimely.
`
` 4 MR. VODOPIA: We want to put it in the
`
` 5 record now. Or give it back. We'll give it to you
`
` 6 when we put it in the record.
`
` 7 MR. SCHINDLER: We'll put it in later,
`
` 8 how's that? We'll deal with that issue later.
`
` 9 MR. WEINER: You can submit it later if
`
` 10 you like, and we can object to it if you like.
`
` 11 MR. SCHINDLER: We'll take it that way.
`
` 12 MR. WEINER: Okay.
`
` 13 THE DEPONENT: Would you like me to
`
` 14 continue answering the question? I got as far as
`
` 15 my undergraduate degree in mechanical engineers.
`
` 16 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 17 Q. Yes. Please describe what was
`
` 18 next in your education.
`
` 19 A. So in my education I then in 2009
`
` 20 I completed a part-time master's of business
`
` 21 administration also through the University of
`
` 22 British Columbia that I completed in January of
`
` 23 2011, specialization in international business.
`
` 24 Q. And you also received an award
`
` 25 from the Copenhagen business school?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 15 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`16
`
` 1 A. So as part of my education I
`
` 2 completed a term overseas in Denmark in which I
`
` 3 completed that international business and business
`
` 4 -- international leadership and business strategy
`
` 5 award program.
`
` 6 Q. So you studied in Denmark in 2010?
`
` 7 A. It would have been in late -- in
`
` 8 the summer of 2010, correct, yes.
`
` 9 Q. You began work at ACCO or
`
` 10 Kensington in 2005; is that right?
`
` 11 A. Correct, yes.
`
` 12 Q. And your understanding is that
`
` 13 Kensington is a part of ACCO?
`
` 14 A. Correct, yes.
`
` 15 Q. If I refer to ACCO today would you
`
` 16 understand that I'm also referring to Kensington?
`
` 17 A. Yes.
`
` 18 Q. What was your position when you
`
` 19 were hired at ACCO in 2005?
`
` 20 A. Associate project manager.
`
` 21 Q. Associate project manager?
`
` 22 A. Correct. And specifically I
`
` 23 worked on the power business.
`
` 24 Q. And what does the power business
`
` 25 include?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 16 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`17
`
` 1 A. It would have included laptop
`
` 2 power supplies. So the external power supply for a
`
` 3 laptop would be an example of the product in that
`
` 4 product line.
`
` 5 Q. Did your job title change at any
`
` 6 time during your employment at ACCO?
`
` 7 A. Yes, it did.
`
` 8 Q. And what was the next position you
`
` 9 had after associate project manager?
`
` 10 A. Project manager.
`
` 11 Q. And when did you receive the title
`
` 12 of project manager?
`
` 13 A. I believe it may have been either
`
` 14 2006 or 2007. I don't recall exactly.
`
` 15 Q. Did your title change at any time
`
` 16 after 2006 or 2007 when you became a project
`
` 17 manager?
`
` 18 A. Yes, it did. I believe -- and
`
` 19 there may be intermediary steps there. What I do
`
` 20 recall is my final title would have been manager
`
` 21 global security business, or something to that
`
` 22 extent.
`
` 23 Q. And the global security business
`
` 24 does that refer to the computer locks and related
`
` 25 products?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 17 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`18
`
` 1 A. Yes, it does.
`
` 2 Q. And then you worked at ACCO up
`
` 3 until January 2011?
`
` 4 A. That's correct, yes.
`
` 5 Q. Your study at the Copenhagen
`
` 6 business school in Denmark did that occur while you
`
` 7 were employed at ACCO?
`
` 8 A. Yes, it did.
`
` 9 Q. Did you need to take a leave of
`
` 10 absence from work to do that?
`
` 11 A. Yes, I did.
`
` 12 Q. And then after studying in
`
` 13 Copenhagen you returned to ACCO?
`
` 14 A. That's correct, yes.
`
` 15 Q. Did you work with Ryan White at
`
` 16 ACCO?
`
` 17 A. Yes, I did.
`
` 18 Q. What was Mr. White's title at ACCO
`
` 19 if you recall?
`
` 20 A. Senior designer, I believe, global
`
` 21 security business. Or it may have included senior
`
` 22 industrial designer, global security business.
`
` 23 Q. So you worked with Mr. White when
`
` 24 you were working in the global security business?
`
` 25 A. That's correct, yes. Ryan
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 18 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`19
`
` 1 reported to me as a direct report.
`
` 2 Q. Was Ryan working at ACCO before
`
` 3 you began to work there?
`
` 4 A. I don't think so. As I recall I
`
` 5 may have started slightly before Ryan.
`
` 6 MR. SCHINDLER: Objection to relevancy.
`
` 7 It's also an objection that the witness
`
` 8 should not necessarily know what Mr. Ryan's work
`
` 9 history is.
`
` 10 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 11 Q. At ACCO what products were you
`
` 12 responsible for?
`
` 13 A. During the tenure? The entire
`
` 14 period? Or a specific period of time?
`
` 15 Q. Why don't you focus on while you
`
` 16 were working on the global security business?
`
` 17 A. As the manager for the business
`
` 18 unit I would have been responsible for product
`
` 19 managing and doing product development. So product
`
` 20 managing existing SKUs, stock keeping units, and
`
` 21 responsible for the introduction of new products
`
` 22 into their product line.
`
` 23 Q. Were you responsible for
`
` 24 developing new products?
`
` 25 A. Can you clarify what responsible
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 19 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`20
`
` 1 for developing would mean in your context?
`
` 2 Q. Well, by developing I meant coming
`
` 3 up with designs for new products.
`
` 4 A. So in my role, right, it's not
`
` 5 just the design, it's the assessing market
`
` 6 opportunity and aligning market need with product
`
` 7 need. So there's a nuance there. But, yes, you
`
` 8 could describe it as a responsibility to define a
`
` 9 roadmap to introduce new products to the market,
`
` 10 including executing on the technical capability to
`
` 11 meet the requirements that we defined.
`
` 12 Q. Were you responsible for
`
` 13 developing the design of ACCO's ClickSafe product
`
` 14 line of computer locks?
`
` 15 A. Again, I just want to make sure
`
` 16 I'm clear. When you say "responsible" can you
`
` 17 clarify?
`
` 18 MR. SCHINDLER: Objection to relevancy.
`
` 19 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 20 Q. I'll try to help clarify it.
`
` 21 Could you let me know if there's something in
`
` 22 particular that is unclear to you about that word?
`
` 23 A. So from my perspective product
`
` 24 management is complicated. So responsibility could
`
` 25 mean a number of different things. Are you
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 20 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`21
`
` 1 responsible for the technical performance of the
`
` 2 product? Are you responsible for the profit and
`
` 3 loss of the product on introduction? Are you
`
` 4 responsible for the go-to-market planning? I just
`
` 5 would like to understand. New product introduction
`
` 6 is a very multi-stepped process. So when you say
`
` 7 were you responsible, are you implying I had final
`
` 8 responsibility, autonomy to say yes or no. That's
`
` 9 the way I understand the question. So if you could
`
` 10 clarify specifically around if you're asking about
`
` 11 my technical involvement or my business involvement
`
` 12 that would help.
`
` 13 Q. Okay. I think I understand. I'll
`
` 14 try to clarify that. First of all, when I'm asking
`
` 15 you if you had responsibility for, I'm not asking
`
` 16 if you were ultimately top responsibility in the
`
` 17 company necessarily, I'm just asking if that was
`
` 18 part of your job responsibilities. And in
`
` 19 particular I'm asking if you had responsibilities
`
` 20 for coming up with the design of the ClickSafe
`
` 21 products?
`
` 22 A. Yes. And, again, let me clarify
`
` 23 again, because lock design is complicated, and I
`
` 24 oversaw a team of people, one of which Ryan was a
`
` 25 member of. It was quite collaborative in terms of
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 21 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`22
`
` 1 coming up with the final design that worked. But
`
` 2 ultimately I had or I had the feeling of
`
` 3 responsibility to make sure the product met the
`
` 4 technical requirements as set forth during the
`
` 5 product requirements definition stage.
`
` 6 So other people may have taken care of
`
` 7 the detailed design, like the CAD work, specific
`
` 8 radiuses, etcetera, but I ultimately oversaw and
`
` 9 made sure that that design was robust, that met the
`
` 10 requirements that we had set forth in the product
`
` 11 requirement document.
`
` 12 Q. So you and your team came up with
`
` 13 the design of the ClickSafe products; is that
`
` 14 right?
`
` 15 A. So, can I ask the question about
`
` 16 the relevance of ClickSafe just to the deposition?
`
` 17 Because what I've provided in the deposition or in
`
` 18 the testimony myself focused on two pieces of art,
`
` 19 McDaid and Chen.
`
` 20 So the questioning around ClickSafe
`
` 21 which quite honestly some of that I do feel a
`
` 22 responsibility to maintain some privilege
`
` 23 especially if you want to talk about the detailed
`
` 24 design thereof, I would prefer that that is done in
`
` 25 confidence. I don't want to discuss specifics
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 22 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`23
`
` 1 around that design.
`
` 2 And, again, the questioning around --
`
` 3 if you're trying to assess how technical I am and
`
` 4 did I have responsibility for coming up with lock
`
` 5 designs in general, not specifically just
`
` 6 ClickSafe, or quick connect as it was then called,
`
` 7 then the answer to that question is yes.
`
` 8 I'm a mechanical engineer. I'm a lock
`
` 9 designer. Although I provided business management
`
` 10 for that team, I was technically the person that
`
` 11 would do all the design reviews, gated the product
`
` 12 and made sure the product met the requirements
`
` 13 before it entered production. So, yes, I'm
`
` 14 mechanically responsible for the final design
`
` 15 performance of the product, not just ClickSafe.
`
` 16 Q. I'm handing you what has
`
` 17 previously been marked Exhibit 1014.
`
` 18 And just a clarification about the
`
` 19 exhibits, I'm handing you an exhibit that's marked
`
` 20 1014. It's also marked with IPR No. 2015-1167.
`
` 21 MR. VODOPIA: I just want to object.
`
` 22 This is outside the scope of the deposition.
`
` 23 MR. WEINER: Okay. Objection is noted.
`
` 24 THE DEPONENT: And, again, specifically
`
` 25 this is a product that is protected by intellectual
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 23 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`24
`
` 1 property of which I'm a named inventory. And,
`
` 2 again, I don't feel comfortable talking about
`
` 3 specifics around ClickSafe, the specificity of the
`
` 4 lock, the lock performance, how it functions,
`
` 5 etcetera.
`
` 6 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 7 Q. The reason you're raising the
`
` 8 issue of confidential information, is that because
`
` 9 you have confidentiality obligations to ACCO?
`
` 10 MR. SCHINDLER: Objection. This is
`
` 11 beyond the scope of his testimony. It's of no
`
` 12 relevance. And there's nothing confidential about
`
` 13 ClickSafe because it's out there in the public
`
` 14 domain; the knowledge of its operation.
`
` 15 MR. WEINER: Could you read back the
`
` 16 question, please?
`
` 17 (Last question read back)
`
` 18 THE DEPONENT: There are some covenants
`
` 19 in my employment contract when I signed it such
`
` 20 that information that we agreed would be
`
` 21 confidential during my tenure I don't feel
`
` 22 comfortable sharing that.
`
` 23 And, again, specifically as I
`
` 24 mentioned, the testimony provided in this case I
`
` 25 looked at McDaid and Chen, it has nothing to do
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 24 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`25
`
` 1 with ClickSafe. Kensington and the ClickSafe lock.
`
` 2 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 3 Q. I understand, and I will ask you
`
` 4 about that. If at any time a question that I'm
`
` 5 asking you think would require confidential
`
` 6 information or response please let me know and
`
` 7 we'll address how to do that.
`
` 8 A. Sure. And I think that's what I'm
`
` 9 trying to do, I'm trying to say if there is
`
` 10 something specific about the lock, how it works,
`
` 11 etcetera, if I don't understand the question where
`
` 12 that might be going I would prefer that that's
`
` 13 provided in confidence.
`
` 14 Q. Okay. Understood. And my
`
` 15 intention is not to ask you any questions that
`
` 16 would require revealing any confidential
`
` 17 information in your response, but if you think
`
` 18 that's the case please let me know --
`
` 19 A. Sure.
`
` 20 Q. -- and we'll determine how to mark
`
` 21 the record as confidential, or I can rephrase the
`
` 22 question to avoid that, okay?
`
` 23 A. Thank you.
`
` 24 Q. So you mentioned you have a
`
` 25 written confidential agreement with ACCO, right?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 25 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`26
`
` 1 Or employment agreement?
`
` 2 A. So part of my employment --
`
` 3 typically when you work in technology at time of
`
` 4 employment you're asked and you covenant to say
`
` 5 basically anything shared with you that's deemed
`
` 6 privileged or confidential.
`
` 7 MR. SCHINDLER: Same objection to
`
` 8 relevance.
`
` 9 THE DEPONENT: That would have been
`
` 10 part of the employment contract.
`
` 11 BY MR. WEINER:
`
` 12 Q. And that agreement prevents you
`
` 13 from disclosing any confidential ACCO information,
`
` 14 right?
`
` 15 A. Correct.
`
` 16 Q. Did you review the confidentiality
`
` 17 agreement before or during any discussions with
`
` 18 Think Products?
`
` 19 A. I'm aware of my covenants. I'm
`
` 20 always aware of my covenants. I understand my
`
` 21 covenants extend post employment with Kensington,
`
` 22 and I honour and abide by them, which, again, in my
`
` 23 industry is typical.
`
` 24 Q. Did you bring to Think Products'
`
` 25 attention your confidentiality obligation?
`
`neesonsreporting.com
`
`3/21/2016
`
`Ex. 1023 - Page 26 of 139
`
`
`
`Robert Mahaffrey
`
`27
`
` 1 A. It's understood. But anything
`
` 2 they would ask me similar to this conversation if I
`
` 3 feel that it's confidential I, again, abide by my
`
` 4 covenant, I don't share that information.
`
` 5 Q. So Think Products was aware of
`
` 6 your confidentiality oblig
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
