DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
`AMAZON.COM, INC, AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC,
` AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC, HULU, LLC AND
` NETFLIX,INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00948
` Patent 8.566,960 B2
`
` DEPOSITION OF
` DR. AVIEL RUBIN
` Monday, October 9, 2017
` 10:07 a.m.
`
`COURT REPORTER: Donna M. Lewis, RPR, CSR (HI)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 1
`
`
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
`AMAZON.COM, INC, AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC,
` AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC, HULU, LLC AND
` NETFLIX,INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00948
` Patent 8.566,960 B2
`
` DEPOSITION OF
` DR. AVIEL RUBIN
` Monday, October 9, 2017
` 10:07 a.m.
`
`COURT REPORTER: Donna M. Lewis, RPR, CSR (HI)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 1
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`2
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________________________
`AMAZON.COM, INC, AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC,
` AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC, HULU, LLC AND
` NETFLIX,INC
` Petitioner,
` v.
` UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
` Patent Owner
` ______________________________
` Case IPR2017-00948
` Patent 8.566,960 B2
`
` Videotaped Deposition of DR. AVIEL
`RUBIN, held at BWI Airport Marriott, 1743 West
`Nursery Road, Linthicum, Maryland 21090, pursuant
`to Notice, before Donna Marie Lewis, Registered
`Professional Reporter and Notary Public for the
`State of Maryland.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 2
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` PERKINS COIE
` BY: DANIEL T. SHVODIAN, ESQUIRE
` 3150 Porter Drive
` Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
` Telephone: (650) 838-4413
` Facsimile: (650) 838-4613
` Email: DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.:
` ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
` BY: JEFFREY HUANG, ESQUIRE
` 2600 East Southlake Blvd.
` Suite 120-134
` Southlake, Texas 76092
` Telephone: (408) 797-9059
` Email: jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` PATRICK GRAHAM, LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 3
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`4
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS:
` Dr. Aviel Rubin
`EXAMINATION: PAGE
` By Mr. Huang 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`RUBIN
`EXHIBITS: DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`No. 1001 '960 Patent 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 4
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`5
`
` P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins disk one
`in the videotaped deposition of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`taken in the matter of Amazon.com Inc., et al., v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. in the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office case number IPR2017-00948,
`patent number 8,566,960B2.
` Today's date is October 9, 2017. The
`time is 9:03. This deposition is being held at
`1743 West Nursery Road, Linthicum Heights,
`Maryland 21090.
` The court reporter is Donna Lewis. The
`video camera operator is Patrick Graham, both are
`on behalf of Complete Legal.
` Will counsel please introduce themselves
`and state whom they represent.
` MR. HUANG: Jeffrey Huang for patent
`owner Uniloc.
` MR. SHVODIAN: Dan Shvodian for
`petitioners Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Digital
`Services Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc.,
`Hulu, LLC and Netflix Inc. and I also represent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 5
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`6
`
`Dr. Rubin.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
` Would the court reporter please swear in
`the witness.
`Whereupon,
` A V I E L R U B I N
`after having been first duly sworn by the Notary
`Public was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
` MR. HUANG: Good morning, Dr. Rubin.
`Okay. So do you understand that during this
`deposition I will be asking questions and you will
`be providing answers?
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And if at any point you do not
`understand a question will you please let me know?
` A Yes.
` Q And can we agree that if you do provide
`an answer that then you have understood the
`question?
` A I will give the best answer that I can.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 6
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`7
` Q Okay. Is there any reason why you can't
`give us your full and truthful testimony this
`morning?
` A No.
` Q Great.
` MR. SHVODIAN: Counsel, before we go any
`further can I just -- I just want to put an
`objection on the record that we object to the
`videotaping of this deposition and the use of the
`videotape because it was not noticed to be
`videotaped.
` MR. HUANG: Okay. That's fine. I just
`want to make a note that the notice did say the
`deposition -- the deposition shall be recorded at
`least stenographically by an officer authorized to
`take testimony under 35 USC Section 23.
` Okay. I'd like to -- this has been a
`previously marked exhibit as Petitioner
`Exhibit 1001. Enter that. Give a copy of this.
`Yes, please.
` (Whereupon, Exhibit No. 1001 previously
`marked for identification was introduced.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 7
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`8
`
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Dr. Rubin, do you recognize this
`document?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q How do you recognize this document?
` A This is the patent that is at issue in
`this case.
` Q And if I refer to this as the
`'960 Patent will you understand that I mean this
`document?
` A Yes.
` Q Thank you. If you can look with me and
`take your time, as much time as you need to
`read -- to read the document. But if you look at
`claims 1 and 22 in the preamble do you see the
`word adjusting in both?
` A I do.
` Q And in the context of -- well, let me
`backup. In terms of claims 1 and 22 so you
`understand the term adjusting in each to mean the
`same thing?
` A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 8
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`9
`
` Q And what is your understanding of the
`term adjusting?
` A Do you have my expert declaration that I
`can see, please?
` Q No. I'm sorry.
` A You don't have my declaration?
` Q No.
` A So the first thing I will say is that --
` MR. SHVODIAN: -- Before you answer I
`want to object that -- you know, this isn't a
`memorization test. Dr. Rubin can testify to what
`he recalls, but his opinions are set forth in that
`declaration. So I think it's highly improper to
`try and force the witness to remember everything
`that was stated in a declaration that was
`submitted at least six months ago.
` MR. HUANG: Sure. And I'm -- nobody is
`asking him to have memorized it. I'm asking for
`his opinion on this. He can state his opinion is
`written down, that's fine.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q So let me ask this first then. Did you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 9
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`10
`submit a declaration in support of petition number
`IPR2017-00948?
` A Yes.
` Q And did you review the declaration
`before signing it?
` A Yes.
` Q And were there any errors that you
`identified in that declaration since signing it?
` A No.
` Q Okay. So looking back at claims 1 and
`22 of the '960 Patent. Regarding the term
`adjusting can you please give me your
`understanding of the term adjusting?
` MR. SHVODIAN: And I want to make the
`same objection. You are asking the witness to
`recall things from many months ago. He can answer
`to the best he can.
` THE WITNESS: So I will preface this by
`saying that I have been deposed before. I've
`worked as an expert before and I always assume
`that I'm going to have my declaration. And so
`having to answer from memory without my
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 10
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`11
`
`declaration -- you know, puts me in a situation
`where I may not remember what my opinion was when
`I offered it. Given that comment I would say that
`adjusting, I believe what I said -- and I don't
`know actually if I construed it in my declaration
`or not, but I think in this context it means to
`set a value to a particular number.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Okay. And then in terms -- you used the
`word set when you said set of value. What is your
`understanding of the meaning of the word set?
` MR. SHVODIAN: I object again to this
`whole line of questioning by not giving the
`witness a chance to review his report.
` THE WITNESS: So if I recall correctly
`that is something that I opined on in my
`declaration. And I'm going to just give a
`disclaimer that I don't -- I was assuming that I
`would be able in the declaration to look through
`my report and see what I said about it. But to --
`you know, off of the top of my head I would say
`that to set a value is to give it a particular
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 11
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`12
`
`specific value.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And in the context of, again, this
`patent what is the difference then if any between
`the terms adjusting and set?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: So I don't -- I don't
`know -- I don't want to sound like a broken
`record. So maybe I will make a standing
`comment --
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Sure.
` A -- that will preface all of my answers.
`Which is that I believe that issue is discussed in
`my expert report and now I'm having to draw from
`my memory.
` But if I'm going to do this in realtime
`right now without my report I would say that the
`difference is that if you are adjusting then you
`are already set at a particular value and you
`change it and possibly change it to some other
`value. Whereas when you set it, it could have not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 12
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`13
`been set. You just would -- you know, it could be
`an undefined or uninitialized variable and then
`you just set it to a particular value.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q What does it mean to have a variable
`that's undefined or uninitialized?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: So you can have variables
`that don't have any value because no value has
`been assigned to them. And in the time before a
`value was assigned to something then it would meet
`that.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And in the -- in the instance of an
`unassigned or uninitialized valued is it -- does a
`value truly have no value? What does that mean?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Counsel, could -- just so
`I don't have to state it every time could we just
`have a running objection.
` MR. HUANG: Yeah.
` MR. SHVODIAN: Petitioners object to
`questioning the witness without giving him a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 13
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`14
`
`chance to review his report, requiring him to do
`this from memory. He doesn't have time to read
`through entire documents and recall everything
`that went into generating his opinion and what his
`opinion would be in light of his complete
`document. So you are asking him in the abstract
`and not giving him a chance to review his analysis
`that was prepared based on the full review and
`study of the record. So if I can have that
`standing objection I will just repeat same
`objection so that I don't delay this deposition
`for hours.
` MR. HUANG: Okay. That's fine.
` THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the
`question?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Sure. We were talking about
`uninitialized values.
` A Right.
` Q And you said an uninitialized value has
`no value. And my question was does an
`uninitialized value truly have no value?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 14
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`15
`
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: In many programming
`languages it would. So for example in many
`programming languages if you try to assign X the
`value that Y has, but if Y has not been assigned a
`value or initialized you will get an error saying
`you are trying to assign an uninitialized value.
`So there is a concept in computers of variables
`not having any value or having not been assigned
`any value. That's an answer outside of these
`patents. I understood that be to a broad computer
`science question.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And I guess in the context of computer
`science again, is it the case that a variable is
`stored in a block or blocks of physical memory in
`RAM?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection. And
`object to the scope. Outside of the scope of his
`report.
` THE WITNESS: Is your question whether
`when you are running a program the values of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 15
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`16
`
`variables are in RAM as opposed to on disk?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Not exactly. But yes, can you answer
`that question?
` A So --
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: Broadly in computer
`science not taking into account anything to do
`with this case when a program is running the
`variables are in RAM.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And so when you say -- let me backup.
`And what does RAM hold?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: RAM holds a lot of things.
`It would have the executable. It would have the
`stack along with all of the function variables.
`It would have the heap, which is all of the
`dynamic global variables. It could have a lot of
`other values.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q I understand. And I guess -- sorry.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 16
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`17
`What I meant at a value level is it the case that
`RAM holds zeroes and ones?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objection.
`Objection to scope.
` THE WITNESS: So the -- the RAM consists
`of bits which can have the value zero or one. But
`when taken together there is usually more
`semantics there that it -- it can mean something
`to a program.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Understood. But when it comes to the
`actual value held in a bit and a string of bits or
`some -- you know, longer length of bits, they're
`just made up of zeroes and ones? Correct?
` A It's --
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: Zeroes and ones.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q So when you say a variable has no value
`but it is represented in RAM what does it mean to
`have no value?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections. Outside
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 17
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`18
`
`of the scope.
` THE WITNESS: It means that the program
`is running within a certain context. And so a
`variable in a program is going to either be
`initialized or uninitialized. If it's
`uninitialized many programming languages won't
`allow you to use that value. There would be
`zeroes and ones of some kind in the storage area
`appointed to by that variable, but it wouldn't
`have any meaning to that program. You would never
`be able to read those zeroes and ones because the
`program would consider it to be uninitialized.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And do you have an approximation of how
`many program languages would let you read those
`zeroes and ones in an uninitialized value?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Outside of
`the scope.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q But there are some?
` A At the very least you could use assembly
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 18
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`19
`
`language and get to them.
` Q Looking at -- let's stick with claim 1
`of the '960 Patent. Is there an adjustment going
`on in claim 1?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Well, you -- we identified the term
`adjusting in claim 1 in the preamble. Do you
`recall that?
` A Yes.
` Q Can you tell me if there is any
`adjusting occurring in claim 1?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So my first comment,
`despite my standing comment earlier, is that I
`know that there are things in my report that I
`would want to consult before I answered that.
`Without that report I will just say that the in
`response to -- the second in response to
`limitation shows an adjustment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 19
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`20
`
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And what is being adjusted in that
`limitation?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: The allowed copy count.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And can you tell me how the allowed copy
`count is being adjusted?
` A It's being set to a first upper limit.
` Q And do you know what it is adjusted
`from?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` And again, counsel, I object to the way
`you are running this entire deposition. I see the
`witness flipping through pages of the patent
`trying to answer your questions on the fly. It's
`highly improper to force him to try and do that on
`the fly without giving him a copy of his report.
` MR. HUANG: Okay. You've made this
`objection many times. We've agreed this will be a
`standing objection. How many more times --
` MR. SHVODIAN: -- I have a copy. I have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 20
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`21
`a copy of his report on my computer. I'm happy to
`allow the witness to review his report. Do you
`have an objection to that?
` MR. HUANG: No. No objection.
` MR. SHVODIAN: If you think it may help
`to review your report?
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
` MR. SHVODIAN: I can pull that up for
`you.
` THE WITNESS: Is there any way to get a
`hard copy?
` MR. SHVODIAN: I do not have a hard
`copy. Let me double check. I don't think so.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q While we're waiting for that can you
`tell me what you did if anything to prepare for
`today's deposition?
` A Yes. I read my report and the various
`patents in the case and I had a phone meeting with
`counsel.
` Q And when was the last time you read your
`report?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 21
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`22
`
` A Over the weekend.
` Q So that was one day ago, two days ago?
` A Yes.
` MR. HUANG: So shall we take a break
`while you -- we decide whether we will give it to
`him digitally or some other way?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Sure.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the
`record. The time is 9:22.
` (The proceeding recessed from 9:22 a.m.
`to 9:35 a.m.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the
`record at 9:35.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Okay. Let's see if I can recall where
`we were. I think we were looking at claim 1 of
`the '960 Patent and we were looking at the second
`in response to limitation regarding the allowed
`copy count. And let me see. It says in the
`second line of that limitation set the allowed
`copy count to a first upper limit. Do you see
`that?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 22
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`23
`
` A Yes.
` Q What was the allowed copy count's value
`before the first upper limit?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Vague.
`Objection. Incomplete hypothetical. And
`objection to this line of questioning without
`giving the witness his report.
` THE WITNESS: So going from memory
`without my report I would say that it's not clear
`what the value was beforehand.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Okay. And then if you look with me to
`claim 9, which depends from claim 1, do you see in
`the first -- in response to limitation there, it
`says that in response to the device identity not
`being on the record after the first time period
`has expired set the allowed copy count to a second
`upper limit for a second time period?
` A I see that, yes.
` Q And do you understand that the allowed
`copy count there is being adjusted from a first
`upper limit to a second upper limit?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 23
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`24
`
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical. And objection, forcing the witness
`to answer without giving him access to his report.
` THE WITNESS: I would say that is right.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q We had talked about a variable being
`uninitialized. How would you initialize a
`variable?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: Are you talking in general
`outside of this case just in computer science?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Correct. So to your understanding?
` A You assign it a value.
` Q And when you initialize a variable by
`assigning it a value is that an adjustment of that
`variable?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: If you're in a programming
`language that can have -- that gives an error if
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 24
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`25
`you try to use an uninitialized variable, then if
`you assign it a value the question is if that is
`an adjustment if it's uninitialized and then you
`assign a value? Was that your question?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Correct.
` A I would say that that's setting the
`value.
` Q And if that's setting the value how
`would you then adjust the variable?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So after you've set it how
`would you adjust it?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Correct.
` A You could add one to it. That would be
`an example of adjusting the value.
` Q If you assigned that same variable a
`complete different value would be that adjusting
`it?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 25
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`26
`
`hypothetical. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So outside of this case,
`again, you have a variable and you've set it to
`something now you are just setting it to something
`else? And your question is if that's an
`adjustment?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Correct.
` A I would say yes.
` Q Is it the case then an initial setting
`is not an adjustment?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical, vague, and not giving the witness
`access to his report.
` THE WITNESS: Can you represent the
`question please.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Sure. Is it the case that initially
`setting a variable is not an adjustment of that
`variable?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: So in what programming
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 26
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`27
`
`language?
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q What is the program language you're most
`familiar with?
` A C.
` Q In C then. If you in the act of
`initiating a variable in C is that not considered
`an adjustment of that variable?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Same objections.
` THE WITNESS: Outside of my case and
`without my report I would say that's not an
`adjustment, that's a setting.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Looking again at claim 1. I think
`the -- after the preamble. It's the fourth and
`fifth limitations. The fourth one starts with
`verify the license data. Do you see that?
` A I see that.
` Q Can you read the fourth and fifth
`limitations for me and let me know when you are
`done?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 27
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`28
`
` A Okay. Verify that a license data
`associated with the digital product is valid based
`at least in part on a device identity generated by
`sampling physical parameters of the given device
`in response to the device identity already being
`on a record allow the digital product to be used
`on the given device.
` Q In the fifth limitation where it says in
`response to a device identity already being on the
`record do you understand that to mean that there
`is a check there to determine whether the device
`identity is already on the record?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Questioning
`the witness without giving him access to his
`report. Also vague.
` THE WITNESS: So I will just say that
`this is the point in most depositions where I
`would look at what I wrote in my report about that
`limitation. But just having to do it without my
`report I would say that there would need to be a
`check.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 28
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`29
`
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q And then looking at the fourth
`limitation, the verify that license data -- well,
`I will just start with this. It begins with
`verify that license data associated with that
`limitation. Regarding -- actually, let me start
`over. Where the -- with the limitation that says
`verify that license data associated with the
`digital product is valid based at least in part on
`the device identity generated by sampling physical
`parameters of the given device.
` Do you understand that there would be a
`check for at least the physical parameters of the
`given device being on record?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Vague.
`Objection. Questioning the witness without his
`report.
` THE WITNESS: I don't follow your
`question.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Sure. In this limitation it states
`that -- well, let me -- so, the limitation -- the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 29
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`30
`
`limitation states verify that license data
`associated with the digital product is valid based
`at least in part on a device identity generated by
`sampling given parameters of the given device. Do
`you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q In order to verify that the license data
`associated with the digital product is valid based
`at least in part on the device identity generated
`by sampling physical parameters of the given
`device.
` Is it the case that the sampling of the
`physical parameters of the given device would have
`to be compared to the information given by the
`device and something stored away from the device?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Incomplete
`hypothetical. Questioning the witness without his
`report.
` THE WITNESS: I know that I wrote quite
`a bit about this in my report and I don't have
`that. So as I sit here in realtime I would say
`that I'm actually not comfortable answering that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 30
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`31
`
`without my report.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Okay. That's fine. But the answer to
`that question you believe is in your report? Is
`that correct?
` A I would have to look at my report at the
`very least for some context.
` Q Is the process to verify the license
`data in the fourth limitation different than
`checking the device identity on the record in the
`fifth limitation?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Vague.
`Incomplete hypothetical. Witness doesn't have
`access to his report.
` THE WITNESS: I believe that the fifth
`and following limitations in there are part of the
`verification process that takes place.
` MR. HUANG: Okay. Do you mind if we
`take a quick break?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Sure.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off of
`the record. The time is 9:50.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 31
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`32
` (The proceeding recessed from 9:50 a.m.
`to 9:53 a.m.)
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the
`record at 9:53.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q I believe you stated that it is your
`understanding that the verified -- sorry, that
`limitations in claim 1 from five on are all part
`of the verified limitation. Is that correct?
` A I --
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. The record
`speaks for itself.
` THE WITNESS: I would need to look back
`through my report, but I do believe that that's
`the case.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q Can you specifically identify for me
`which of the following limitations or is it all of
`them that you believe are part of the verified
`limitation?
` MR. SHVODIAN: Objection. Witness
`doesn't have access to his report.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 32
`
`
`
`DR. AVIEL RUBIN
`
`33
` THE WITNESS: I believe my report would
`help me answer that. But sitting here today
`without it I would say that the remaining steps
`are part of the verification.
`BY MR. HUANG:
` Q So by that you mean all of the remaining
`steps to the end of the claim?
` A Yes.
` MR. HUANG: Okay. Thank you. I have no
`further questions.
` MR. SHVODIAN: Okay. I don't have any
`questions.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off of the
`record at 9:55.
` (Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the above
`proceedings was adjourned.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Complete Legal
`
`214-746-5400
`
`Amazon v. Uniloc, IPR2017-00948
`Uniloc's Exhibit 2003, page 33
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
`
`I, DONNA M. LEWIS, RPR, Certified.
`
`Shorthand Reporter, certify;
`
`That the foregoing proceedings were
`
`taken before me at the time and place therein set
`
`forth, at which time the witness, Dr. Aviel Rubin,
`
`was put under oath by me;
`
`That the testimony of the witness,
`
`the
`
`questions propounded and all objections and
`
`statements made at the time of the examination
`
`were recorded stenographically by me and were
`
`thereafter transcribed;
`
`I de
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
