William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`Case IPR2016—OO45
`
`v.
`
`JI-SOO LEE,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`)
`
`Patent 6,233,518
`
`DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM MICHALSON, Ph.D.
`
`Taken at
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING SERVICES
`
`446 Main Street
`
`Worcester, Massachusetts
`
`Thursday, July 14, 2016
`
`8:04 — 10:22 a.m.
`
`Deborah Leonard Lovejoy
`
`Registered Professional Reporter
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`Lee 2013 1
`
`l£e2m3 1
`
`
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`Case IPR2016—OO45
`
`v.
`
`JI-SOO LEE,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`)
`
`Patent 6,233,518
`
`DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM MICHALSON, Ph.D.
`
`Taken at
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING SERVICES
`
`446 Main Street
`
`Worcester, Massachusetts
`
`Thursday, July 14, 2016
`
`8:04 — 10:22 a.m.
`
`Deborah Leonard Lovejoy
`
`Registered Professional Reporter
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`Lee 2013 1
`
`l£e2m3 1
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`Representing the Petitioner:
`
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`
`BY:
`
`DAVID S. ALMELING, ESQ.
`
`(415) 984-8959
`
`FAX (415) 984-8701
`
`E-MAIL da1me1ing@omm.com
`
`-and-
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`
`60 South Sixth Street
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`BY:
`
`RICK BISENIUS, ESQ.
`
`(612) 766-2048
`
`E-MAIL bisenius@fr.com
`
`Representing the Patent Owner:
`
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`
`3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404
`
`Fairfax, Virginia 22030
`
`BY:
`
`HAROLD L. NOVICK, ESQ.
`
`SANG HO LEE, ESQ.
`
`(703) 745-5495
`
`E-MAIL hnovick@nkllaw.com
`
`slee@nkllaw.com
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`2
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`I N D E X
`
`Case IPR2016—00045
`
`Patent 6,233,518
`
`DEPONENT: WILLIAM MICHALSON, Ph.D.
`
`Cross—Examination by Mr. Novick .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Direct Examination by Mr. Almeling .
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`PAGE
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`4
`
`. ..
`
`PAGE
`
`Exhibit 2010, Patent Owner's Amended Notice of
`
`Deposition of Dr. William Michalson .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`Exhibit 2011, 10/28/13 Declaration of
`
`Dr. William R. Michalson Concerning Claim
`
`Construction,
`
`re '518 patent, submitted in
`
`USDC Eastern District of Virginia .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2012, 10/12/15 Declaration of
`
`Dr. William Michalson on Lee patent
`
`12
`
`6,233,518 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`Dr. Michalson's 10/12/15 declaration was
`
`redesignated Google Exhibit 1003,
`
`in line
`
`with its original designation .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 2012, 5/15/01 Lee patent 6,233,518 B1
`
`(subsequently referred to as Google 1001).
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 1004, 5/17/94 Sone patent 5,313,200...
`
`50
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`3
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`(Exhibit 2010, Patent Owner's Amended
`
`Notice of Deposition of Dr. William
`
`Michalson, marked)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Would you swear the
`
`witness, please.
`
`WILLIAM MICHALSON, Ph.D., Deponent, having
`
`first been duly sworn, deposes and states as
`
`follows:
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NOVICK:
`
`Q.
`
`Dr. Michalson, how do you pronounce
`
`your name?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Michalson.
`
`Michalson?
`
`Yes.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Counsel, before we
`
`begin, perhaps we should do appearances?
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`If you want to.
`
`MR. ALMELING: David Almeling, of
`
`O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Google,
`
`Inc.
`
`With me from Fish & Richardson is Rick
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`4
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Besinius.
`
`MR. NOVICK: And for the patent
`
`owner, Harold Novick and Sean Lee, of
`
`Novick, Kim & Lee.
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`Thank you, counsel.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Okay.
`
`A pleasure.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Would you please
`
`show the witness Exhibit No. 10.
`
`And, Doctor, you're familiar with
`
`that? This is the notice of the deposition;
`
`that's why you're here.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, that's what it appears to be.
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`On the record.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Doctor, we're taking
`
`this deposition pursuant to an IPR instituted by
`
`Google to test the validity of patents that my
`
`client is the patent owner of. You're aware of
`
`that.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. There are two patents involved
`
`and there are two IPR's involved.
`
`The procedure
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`5
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`that your attorney and I discussed is we were
`
`going to have two separate depositions. And we're
`
`trying to compress them into one day if we can.
`
`Which is why we started at eight o'clock.
`
`Is that
`
`all right with you?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's fine.
`
`Okay. We may go a little late,
`
`I
`
`don't know, but we'll see. And if we have to
`
`postpone, why, with your counsel's consent, we'll
`
`postpone. Okay?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`All right.
`
`I ask, always, a few
`
`initial questions, just to get the record
`
`straight. Your counsel's advised I should use
`
`gentler language.
`
`As far as your health and mental
`
`state, do you have any impairments?
`
`No.
`
`Okay.
`
`So you're wide awake and clear
`
`At the moment, yes.
`
`Okay. All right.
`
`I will be asking a
`
`number of questions. After my question, just
`
`pause for a second,
`
`to give your counsel time to
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`6
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`object should they do so.
`
`I know you've been
`
`through many depositions, but as I mentioned,
`
`I
`
`like to put on the record a few things.
`
`The main
`
`thing, most important thing to me, is if you don't
`
`understand the question, please tell me that.
`
`I'll reask it or I'll have the reporter repeat it.
`
`But it's very important that you understand the
`
`questions.
`
`Is that clear?
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. All right, first --
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record for a
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`second.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`On the record.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Doctor,
`
`the first
`
`set of questions I'm going to be asking you relate
`
`to your experience in this case and your
`
`remuneration in this case.
`
`You've been hired by Google as an
`
`expert; is that correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`correct?
`
`That's correct.
`
`And they've paid you; is that
`
`A.
`
`That's correct.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`7
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Q.
`
`Do they owe you any money for your
`
`testimony so far?
`
`A.
`
`I believe they're current.
`
`I have
`
`not submitted an invoice for --
`
`Q.
`
`How long have you been working for
`
`I'm sorry.
`
`I withdraw that question.
`
`With respect to the IPR matters and
`
`the patent matters,
`
`themselves,
`
`including the
`
`litigation that you were involved in, how long
`
`have you been working for Google in this case?
`
`A.
`
`I would have to go back to my records
`
`to be precise. My recollection is these reports
`
`were submitted —— or these declarations were
`
`submitted sometime in October of last year.
`
`So
`
`probably, you know, during the summer, June,
`
`July—ish, of last year.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. May I suggest, sir, that it
`
`was before then because you also executed
`
`declaration for the Virginia district court case.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Objection,
`
`form.
`
`That was not on behalf of Google.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`I see. Okay.
`
`Then
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`let me rephrase my question. With respect to
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`8
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`these patents how long have you been working as an
`
`expert involving the two patents in the case? And
`
`the first one is 6,233,518.
`
`So how long have you
`
`been working on that particular patent as an
`
`expert?
`
`A.
`
`I'm not sure I fully understand your
`
`question.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. According to the records that
`
`we have, you executed declaration with respect to
`
`a district court case in the District of Virginia.
`
`And that was, I believe,
`
`in '14.
`
`2014.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That sounds correct.
`
`Okay. Before then did you work at
`
`all on these patents?
`
`A.
`
`I believe the first time that I did
`
`any work associated with the —— with these, with
`
`any of these patents was that case between Porto
`
`and I believe it was Cellco Partnership back in
`
`2014 time frame. That would be the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia,
`
`I believe it was.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, sir. Eastern District of
`
`Virginia. Okay.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`9
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`(Exhibit 2011, 10/28/13 Declaration
`
`of Dr. William R. Michalson Concerning Claim
`
`Construction,
`
`re ‘S18 patent, submitted in
`
`USDC Eastern District of Virginia case of
`
`Porto v. Cellco, marked)
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Okay,
`
`I show you
`
`what has been marked as Deposition Exhibit 2011.
`
`Would you please review it.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`Is that your signature on the last
`
`A.
`
`I only have nine pages. Apparently,
`
`a 49—page document.
`
`I don't have a signature on
`
`this.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`On the record.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`So, Doctor, this
`
`declaration was signed by you in 2014; is that
`
`correct?
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`Two objections. One,
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Two, authentication.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`10
`10
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`The document that was provided was a
`
`nine—page document, which appears to be of
`
`39 pages according to the Pacer entry on the
`
`top.
`
`The signature page was not on the
`
`document; it was added to the document from
`
`another copy and therefore cannot be
`
`authenticated.
`
`Subject to those objections, you can
`
`answer.
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Would you repeat the
`
`question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) What date did you
`
`sign the declaration?
`
`A.
`
`This page that we added to
`
`Exhibit 2011 is dated October 28, 2013.
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`To be clear, my
`
`objection applies to all questions regarding
`
`this document.
`
`Subject to that, please
`
`proceed.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Doctor, did you
`
`refer to this document in your declaration for
`
`this case; do you recall?
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`11
`11
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Offhahd,
`
`I don't recall.
`
`I may have.
`
`All right.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Exhibit 2012, 10/12/15 Declaration
`
`of Dr. William Michalson on Lee patent
`
`6,233,518, marked)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Back on the record.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Doctor, I show you
`
`what's been marked as Exhibit 2012.
`
`Do you
`
`recognize that exhibit?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Would you turn to the last page, sir,
`
`and see if that's your signature?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It is.
`
`Okay. As way of explanation with
`
`respect to Exhibit 11, your counsel is correct
`
`that the pages after,
`
`I believe, 10 were deleted,
`
`because that was just, basically, your CV. That's
`
`just for your information.
`
`No questions asked.
`
`As far as this declaration is
`
`concerned, when did you prepare it? Oh, I'm
`
`sorry. As far as the declaration of Exhibit 2012,
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`12
`12
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`when did you prepare it?
`
`A.
`
`Well, obviously, before the day I
`
`signed it, which is October of 12th of 2015.
`
`I
`
`would have to go back and look at my records to
`
`find out when, exactly,
`
`I started work on this.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Can you approximate?
`
`Certainly earlier than October, but I
`
`don't —— I don't recall.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know how long you spent
`
`preparing that declaration?
`
`MR. ALMELING: Counsel, before we
`
`continue, we've been referring to this
`
`exhibit by a 2000 number.
`
`It was already
`
`marked as Google 1003.
`
`To avoid confusion
`
`of having two exhibits that are the same
`
`document, perhaps we should refer to this as
`
`the designated Google 1003.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Well, off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion, during which
`
`the Exhibit 2012 sticker was removed from
`
`Dr. Michalson's declaration on the ‘S18
`
`patent and parties agreed to instead refer
`
`to the document as Google Exhibit 1003.)
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`13
`13
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`MR. NOVICK: Back on the record.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`Do you recall,
`
`Doctor, how long you spent preparing the
`
`declaration, Exhibit 1003?
`
`A.
`
`I don't have any recollection of how
`
`much time I spent with this.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Would it have been months?
`
`It was probably several hours,
`
`spanning months.
`
`Q.
`
`When you wrote your declaration --
`
`well, 1003, did you use any of the information
`
`from your previous declaration, which is
`
`Exhibit 2007 -- or 2011,
`
`from the Eastern
`
`District?
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`I don't believe
`
`I specifically used any of the information from
`
`Exhibit 2011, although since that predates my
`
`involvement with the Google case,
`
`there are
`
`certainly certain sections of my background, and
`
`things like that,
`
`that I would expect to be very
`
`similar.
`
`Q.
`
`As far as your declaration 1003 goes,
`
`where did you get the material to prepare that?
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`14
`14
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Copies of patents, for example, or references?
`
`A.
`
`From a variety of places.
`
`I've been
`
`working in this general area for a very long time,
`
`so some material may have come from my personal
`
`archives.
`
`Some of the material may have come
`
`through web searches.
`
`Some of the material I may
`
`have been —— may have been advised to me by
`
`attorneys. There's a variety of sources that, you
`
`know,
`
`the patents and prior art, and things of
`
`that nature,
`
`come from.
`
`Q.
`
`But didn't the attorneys give you the
`
`references for you to consider?
`
`A.
`
`I, frankly, don't recall that
`
`evolution.
`
`I can speak generically,
`
`in that in
`
`most of the cases that I work with,
`
`I provide some
`
`of the art and attorneys provide some of the art.
`
`* Q.
`
`Do you recall in this particular
`
`case, with respect to patent 6,233,518, whether
`
`you did any validity searches on your own?
`
`A.
`
`Can you repeat that question again,
`
`please?
`
`Q.
`
`Sure.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Repeat the question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`15
`15
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`A.
`
`I think the answer to that is, yes,
`
`I
`
`had some previous experience with the ‘S18 patent,
`
`so I would have had a record of that art and I
`
`would have advised the attorneys that, yes, I'd
`
`worked with this patent previously and here is at
`
`least some of the art that I had used previously.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`Do you recall the
`
`name of the attorneys you were working with, with
`
`respect to Exhibit 2011?
`
`A.
`
`With respect to Exhibit 2011, I'll
`
`recognize the names.
`
`One of them was Floyd
`
`Chapman. He's the attorney I worked with most
`
`closely.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Do you know what firm he was with?
`
`Again, I'll recognize the name.
`
`If
`
`you have a copy of my --
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Fish & Richardson?
`
`No, he was not Fish & Richardson.
`
`If
`
`you have a copy of my CV,
`
`I can probably get the
`
`information from that.
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`There may be some
`
`record confusion. Were you referring to the
`
`EDVA declaration or the IPR declaration?
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`The IPR declaration.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`16
`16
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`We're off the record.
`
`Oh, do you want to be on the record
`
`for this?
`
`MR. ALMELING: Yes, please.
`
`A.
`
`Your question,
`
`I believe, was
`
`specifically related to 2011.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Correct.
`
`Yeah, that's not the IPR declaration.
`
`Correct.
`
`I correct my question to
`
`refer to your declaration, Exhibit No. 10003 --
`
`1003.
`
`Okay.
`
`Q.
`
`And the question was, do you recall
`
`the name of the attorney you worked with.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`I worked for —— Exhibit 1003,
`
`I
`
`worked most closely with Mike Hawkins and Rick
`
`Besinius, of Fish & Richardson.
`
`Q.
`
`In preparing your declaration, how
`
`many of the words were yours and how many were
`
`theirs?
`
`A.
`
`When I prepare a declaration or an
`
`expert report of this nature,
`
`I usually start with
`
`a template and start beginning filling in that
`
`template, and it becomes a combined effort between
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`17
`17
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Page
`
`myself and the attorneys:
`
`You know, I'll submit a
`
`draft, they'll submit corrections, and it's an
`
`iterative process.
`
`By the end of the day,
`
`I would
`
`say it's probability a 50-50 split, although it's
`
`going to be scattered throughout. Many of these
`
`things are cut—and—paste and modify the
`
`paragraphs.
`
`So exactly who typed how many words I
`
`have no way of knowing. But I would say,
`
`in terms
`
`of the volume of the documents,
`
`I probably am
`
`responsible for about half and they're probably
`
`responsible for about half. And I would, of
`
`course,
`
`review it several times,
`
`to ensure that
`
`it's cohesive and that it's saying what I want it
`
`to say.
`
`Q.
`
`Therefore, all the words in 1003 you
`
`will accept as being your own opinions.
`
`A.
`
`At the end of the day, it's my
`
`report.
`
`I endorsed it,
`
`I signed it, and this is
`
`my opinion.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Do you recall how much you
`
`were paid,
`
`in total, for preparing Exhibit 1003?
`
`A.
`
`Without
`
`looking at my invoices, I'd
`
`have no way of guessing at this point.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know how much your hourly rate
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`18
`18
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`A.
`
`It has changed since I started
`
`working on this matter.
`
`I will take a guess that
`
`it was about 450 an hour, but I'd have to check my
`
`records to see what that going rate is currently.
`
`I haven't submitted an invoice since —— since this
`
`October report.
`
`Q.
`
`Before today's deposition, how much
`
`time have you prepared to get ready for the
`
`deposition? Specifically the deposition.
`
`A.
`
`I would say approximately thirty
`
`Q.
`
`And will you please tell me how you
`
`spent those thirty hours.
`
`A.
`
`Reviewing my declarations,
`
`reviewing
`
`the petitioner's papers,
`
`reviewing the response,
`
`reviewing the Board's decision to institute, and
`
`reviewing some of the art that's cited in the
`
`patents. Or the —— yeah, that's cited in my
`
`declarations.
`
`Q.
`
`By "art" you mean references, patent
`
`references?
`
`A.
`
`Correct. Well, patent —— I don't
`
`believe they're all —— Yeah,
`
`I guess they are all
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`19
`19
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`patent references, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`You have a few Japanese --
`
`Correct.
`
`-- applications.
`
`Now, that time spent,
`
`the thirty
`
`hours, would be for both patents, is that correct,
`
`that are involved in the IPR,
`
`the one we're having
`
`a deposition about now, plus the other one, which
`
`is -- plus patent 6,532,413 for the case
`
`IPR20l6-00022.
`
`A.
`
`That's correct. Approximately thirty
`
`hours for the two of them.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you happen to divide your time
`
`between them? Or just do them -- Rephrase the
`
`question.
`
`Did you divide your time between
`
`A.
`
`I kept records separately for each
`
`patent, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And what is your rate today?
`
`My rate for new matters is $525 an
`
`hour.
`
`I'm honoring the original rate that I
`
`specified for this matter, back when I specified
`
`it, which I ——
`
`I would have to check to verify,
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`20
`20
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`but I think it's around 450.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`MR. NOVICK:
`
`On the record.
`
`Would you please mark this as Patent
`
`Owner's Exhibit 2012.
`
`(Exhibit 2012, 5/15/01 Lee patent
`
`6,233,518 B1, marked; a document previously
`
`marked Google 1001,
`
`later referred to as
`
`such herein)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Doctor, I show you
`
`an exhibit that's been marked 2012. Would you
`
`please identify that.
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`This is a copy
`
`of the ‘S18 patent.
`
`And have you seen this patent before?
`
`Yes.
`
`Have you studied this patent?
`
`Yes.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`21
`21
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`Q.
`
`All right.
`
`I direct your attention
`
`to page 47 and,
`
`in particular, claim 45. Would
`
`you please read that.
`
`A.
`
`I don't have page numbers on the
`
`patent.
`
`Q.
`
`It should be on the bottom, shouldn't
`
`No.
`
`Last page, sir.
`
`I'm looking at claim 45.
`
`All right, would you please read
`
`claim 45 to yourself?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`All right.
`
`In your declaration
`
`before the Eastern District, Exhibit 2011, at page
`
`22 -- at paragraph 22, will you please read that.
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`To reiterate,
`
`I have a
`
`standing hearsay and authentication
`
`objection to all questions regarding
`
`Exhibit 2011.
`
`Please continue.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Would you please read
`
`aloud to the reporter paragraph 22.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`Paragraph 22 of Exhibit 20ll,
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`22
`22
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`which is my claim construction declaration in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia, reads, "I disagree
`
`with Plaintiff's assertion. Unless shape and
`
`position information is included in the image
`
`vector entity,
`
`the claimed invention would be
`
`inoperable to produce a display of traffic
`
`information.
`
`In particular, Figure l7 is in the
`
`only disclosure in the specification showing a
`
`display of traffic information. Absent shape and
`
`position information,
`
`the user device would not be
`
`able to generate the image shown in Figure 17
`
`because the user device would be unable to produce
`
`a display representing 'real' entities such as
`
`roads and traffic."
`
`And I'd like to note that in that
`
`second sentence the "is in the only" is in fact
`
`the way it's written, although that's very
`
`awkward.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`Thank you.
`
`Then you
`
`are saying, am I correct,
`
`from your verbal
`
`statement, that shape and position information is
`
`important in order for the invention of the '518
`
`patent to operate.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Objection,
`
`form.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`23
`23
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`A.
`
`In the context of the litigation and
`
`the claims considered in Eastern District of
`
`Virginia,
`
`then that's certainly true relative to
`
`this claim construction declaration.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`Is that still your
`
`position?
`
`A.
`
`I would have to take a look at the --
`
`I'd have to review the material that I used in
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`I believe the claims
`
`are different,
`
`so I don't know if this is
`
`applicable.
`
`I have opined on this in my
`
`declaration relative to the instant matter. But
`
`whether or not the same analysis applies between
`
`the Eastern District and the IPR,
`
`I can't answer
`
`that without
`
`looking and reviewing the Eastern
`
`District case.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`In claim 45 does it not claim
`
`shape and position statements?
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document) Well, claim 45
`
`requires a shape—designating statement and a
`
`position—designating statement.
`
`Q.
`
`Thank you.
`
`*
`
`In your opinion today, would those
`
`two elements be necessary for the operation of the
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`24
`24
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`present invention?
`
`MR. ALMELING: Objection,
`
`form.
`
`Additionally, objection to scope.
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing documents)
`
`Can you repeat
`
`that question again, please.
`
`MR. NOVICK: Reread the question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`A.
`
`And by "present invention," you mean
`
`the invention that's specified by claim 45.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) Correct,
`
`the
`
`invention as specified by claim 45.
`
`MR. ALMELING:
`
`Same objections.
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document) Well,
`
`in
`
`paragraph 18 of my declaration, which is
`
`Exhibit 1003,
`
`I state that "Claims 45 and 46
`
`recite an ‘image vector entity'" and that "I
`
`interpret this term,
`
`in accordance with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`to
`
`mean 'a data structure including at least shape
`
`and position information for a real entity.'"
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick) And your answer
`
`therefore would be, as far as the operation of the
`
`invention,
`
`those two factors would be necessary?
`
`A.
`
`To satisfy those claim elements, you
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`25
`25
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`would have to have at least shape and position
`
`information for a real entity.
`
`* Q.
`
`Okay. Looking at the invalidity
`
`arguments against claim 45, would a single
`
`reference or a combination of references have to
`
`have a shape—designating statement and a position-
`
`designating statement?
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Pause in proceedings)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Would you please —— back
`
`on the record —— read the previous question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`A.
`
`In my analysis for the references
`
`that I cited,
`
`I found both —— either alone or in
`
`combination, both a shape—designating statement
`
`and a position—designating statement.
`
`* Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`In your opinion,
`
`Doctor,
`
`is there a difference between "shape-
`
`designating statement" and "shape information"?
`
`A.
`
`Do you have something specific you're
`
`citing?
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`26
`26
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`MR. NOVICK: Off the record.
`
`(Off—record discussion)
`
`MR. NOVICK: Back on.
`
`And can you repeat that question?
`
`MR. NOVICK: All right, would you
`
`read the question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`A.
`
`In stating "shape information," you
`
`appear to be referring to paragraph 22 of
`
`Exhibit 2011, which is my Eastern District of
`
`Virginia claim construction declaration relating
`
`to a different claim. And as I said previously,
`
`I
`
`would need to review the Eastern District case
`
`much more fully to determine if I'm using those
`
`terms synonymously.
`
`It appears from paragraph 22 on this
`
`different matter that "information" may be being
`
`used to describe the data, but I would have to
`
`review that matter. And I'd also have to
`
`determine whether the claim at issue in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia was similar enough to
`
`the claims in the instant matter.
`
`MR. ALMELING: Note that off the
`
`record counsel pointed the witness,
`
`in the
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`27
`27
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`context of this question,
`
`to Exhibit 2011,
`
`paragraph 22, which was not noted on the
`
`record and I think should be.
`
`Please continue.
`
`Q.
`
`(By Mr. Novick)
`
`I direct your
`
`attention again to Exhibit 2013, which is the '518
`
`patent, and claim 45 of that.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I don't have an Exhibit 2013.
`
`Oh, 2012. Sorry.
`
`Okay.
`
`I have 2012, which is the '518
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`Is the terminology "shape
`
`information" in claim 45?
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`I don't see the
`
`phrase "shape information" used in claim 45.
`
`Q.
`
`Similar question with respect to
`
`"position information":
`
`Is that in claim 45?
`
`A.
`
`I don't see the phrase "position
`
`information" in claim 45.
`
`Q.
`
`In your position as an expert, would
`
`you say that the terminology of "shape
`
`information" and "shape-designating statement" are
`
`the same?
`
`A.
`
`This is, obviously, a hypothetical
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`28
`28
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`question because it's void of context. And I
`
`think that, depending on context,
`
`they may or may
`
`not be synonymous.
`
`I don't think they're
`
`necessarily the same thing.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Doctor, I direct your
`
`attention to paragraph 19 of your declaration,
`
`Exhibit 1003.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`Do you interpret an attribute-
`
`designating statement as, quote, "an indication of
`
`an attribute for the real entity represented by an
`
`image vector entity"?
`
`A.
`
`That's, actually, a typo that I
`
`identified when I reviewed this declaration.
`
`It
`
`appears as if it's a cut—and—paste error that
`
`occurred when I was contemplating the various
`
`claim interpretations that were floating around.
`
`I would strike the parenthetical example "traffic
`
`state" and I would strike "real entity (e.g.,
`
`road)
`
`represented by."
`
`So I think that should
`
`read "an indication of an attribute for the image
`
`vector entity."
`
`I apologize for that confusion.
`
`Q.
`
`And again turning to claim 45 of
`
`Google Exhibit 1001, is the term "attribute-
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`29
`29
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`designated statement" in the claim?
`
`A.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`"Attribute-
`
`designating statement" is in the claim.
`
`Q.
`
`And I direct your attention,
`
`the same
`
`reference,
`
`to page 19 and Figure D, as in "delta,"
`
`11D.
`
`A.
`
`Again,
`
`I have no page numbers,
`
`so if
`
`you'd refer to figure numbers or --
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Figure 11D.
`
`—— column numbers,
`
`that would be
`
`Okay,
`
`I have llD.
`
`Q.
`
`All right. And 11D indicates what,
`
`in your opinion?
`
`A.
`
`11D is labeled "Attribute (for
`
`example, color)" and it's two side—by—side boxes
`
`one of them labeled "ADC" which is "attribute-
`
`designating command," and another one labeled "C"
`
`which is annotated as "color."
`
`* Q.
`
`In your opinion, would attribute
`
`therefore have to have the two different parts, a
`
`command and a contents?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`To assist the witness, I refer you to
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`30
`30
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`column 11,
`
`lines 45 through 54.
`
`A.
`
`Thank you.
`
`(Reviewing document)
`
`Could you repeat the question, please?
`
`MR. NOVICK: Repeat the question.
`
`*
`
`(Record was read back)
`
`A.
`
`Given the question,
`
`I'm not sure
`
`exactly what you're asking.
`
`11D is referring
`
`not ——
`
`If you look at the text in columns 11 --
`
`or column 11, 46 through 54,
`
`they're describing
`
`Figure 11D in terms of describing an attribute-
`
`designating statement, and they say it's
`
`preferably composed of two parts. But they also
`
`say that "Preferably,
`
`the ADC can be used as a
`
`delimiter which discriminates between TVIVEs."
`
`So
`
`it looks like it does not, necessarily, have to
`
`have —— an attribute—designating statement does
`
`not necessarily have to have two parts.
`
`Q.
`
`Doctor,
`
`same reference, Google 1001,
`
`I refer you to column 2,
`
`lines twenty -- looks
`
`like 25 through 29. Would you read that, please.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`All right. Does that not support the
`
`argument that an attribute-designating statement
`
`has two parts, an attribute-designating command
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`31
`31
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`and an attribute value?
`
`A.
`
`Well, that's consistent with the
`
`first part of the paragraph,
`
`from lines 46 through
`
`54 of paragraph 11.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`That does not go to the alternate,
`
`where the ADC is being used as a delimiter.
`
`Q.
`
`Also, I direct your attention, sir,
`
`to column 3 of reference 1001,
`
`lines 5 through 8,
`
`I guess. And would you read that.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`All right. Would you consider that a
`
`definition of "attribute-designating statement"?
`
`A.
`
`Well, column 3 ——
`
`If I go to the top
`
`of column 3, on line 1,
`
`this is describing one of
`
`the preferred embodiments of the invention. And
`
`in this particular embodiment,
`
`the attribute-
`
`designating statement is identified as being
`
`composed of an attribute—designating command and
`
`an attribute value.
`
`Q.
`
`I refer you, sir -- Thank you.
`
`I
`
`refer you sir,
`
`to paragraph 19 of your
`
`declaration, Google 1003, and particularly on page
`
`13 thereof.
`
`CATUOGNO COURT REPORTING & STENTEL TRANSCRIPTIONS
`
`Springfield, MA Worcester, MA Boston, MA Providence, RI
`
`32
`32
`
`
`
`William Michalson PhD ‘S18
`
`July 14, 2016
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`(Reviewing document) Okay.
`
`Okay.
`
`In paragraph 19 of your
`
`declaration, you say that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, according to what you've been
`
`informed, is based
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
