Exhibit 9 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 1 of 157 PageID #:

5341
· · · · · · · · · ·THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · · · · · · ·FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·MARSHALL DIVISION

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

· · · HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,· · · · · · )Case No.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)2:23-CV-00379-JRG-RSP

· · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · )(Lead Case)

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · T-MOBILE USA, INC. and SPRINT· · · )

· · · CORP.,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · · ·)

· · · ___________________________________)

· 

· 

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

· · · · · · · · · · · REMOTE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF

· · · · · · · · · · · · · DR. DONALD TURNBULL

· · · · · · · · · · · · FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2024

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9:00 A.M. PDT

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

· 

· 

· 

· 

· 

· · · Reported by: JULIE RUMSEY, CSR 14144

· · · Job No. 102656

· · · PAGES 1 - 131

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 2 of 157 PageID #:

5342
·1· · · · · · · · ·THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

·2· · · · · · · · ·FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · ·MARSHALL DIVISION

·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

·5· · HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,· · · · · · )Case No.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)2:23-CV-00379-JRG-RSP

·6· · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · )(Lead Case)

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

·7· · · · · ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · )

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

·8· · T-MOBILE USA, INC. and SPRINT· · · )

· · · CORP.,· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)

· · · · · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · · ·)

10· · ___________________________________)

11

12

13

14

15

16· · · · ·REMOTE VIDEO DEPOSITION OF DR. DONALD TURNBULL,

17· · located in Vancouver, British Columbia, commencing at

18· · 9:01 A.M. PDT on Friday, August 30, 2024, before JULIE

19· · RUMSEY, Certified Shorthand Reporter 14144, in and for the

20· · State of California.

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 157 PageID #:

5343
·1· · APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM:

·2

·3· · FOR THE PETITIONER:

·4· · · · ·GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

· · · · · ·BY:· ROBERT VINCENT, ESQ.

·5· · · · ·2001 ROSS AVE., STE. 2100

· · · · · ·DALLAS, TX 75201-2923

·6· · · · ·(214) 698-3281

· · · · · ·RVincent@gibsondunn.com

·7

·8· · FOR THE PATENT OWNER:

·9· · · · ·RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

· · · · · ·BY:· PHILIP WANG, ESQ.

10· · · · ·12424 WILSHIRE BLVD., 12TH FL.

· · · · · ·LOS ANGELES, CA 90025

11· · · · ·(310) 826-7474

· · · · · ·pwang@raklaw.com

12

13· · LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHER:

14· · · · ·KORYN COALSON

15

16· · ALSO PRESENT:

17· · · · ·YI ZHANG, ESQ.

18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 4 of 157 PageID #:

5344
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

·3· · EXAMINATION

·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·5· · · ·BY ATTORNEY WANG· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7, 129

·6· · · ·BY ATTORNEY VINCENT· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 128

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

·8· · QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE· · LINE

10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·11· · · 15

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·12· · · ·8

11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·41· · · ·2

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·41· · · ·8

12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·78· · · ·9

13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

14· · EXHIBITS

15· · EXHIBIT· · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE

16· · Exhibit 1· ·8/9/2024 Declaration of

· · · · · · · · · Dr. Donald Turnbull

17· · · · · · · · 30 Pages· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·24

18· · Exhibit 2· ·8/24/2024 Declaration of

· · · · · · · · · Dr. Donald Turnbull

19· · · · · · · · and

· · · · · · · · · Attachment A - Dr. Donald Turnbull's CV

20· · · · · · · · 41 Pages· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·24

21· · Exhibit 3· ·Patent No.: US 8,589,541

· · · · · · · · · 100 Pages

22

· · · Exhibit 4· ·Patent No.: US 9,215,613

23· · · · · · · · 94 Pages· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·59

24· · Exhibit 5· ·8/22/2024 claim Construction Order

· · · · · · · · · 19 Pages· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 124

25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 5 of 157 PageID #:

5345
·1· · · · · · · FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2024, 9:01 A.M. PDT

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ---o0o---

·3· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are on the record.· This is

·4· · the beginning of media number 1 in the deposition of Donald

·5· · Turnbull in the matter of -- in the matters of Headwater

·6· · Research, LLC, versus T-Mobile Incorporated, et al., as

·7· · well as Headwater Research, LLC, versus Cellco Partnership

·8· · d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Verizon Corporate Services

·9· · Group, Incorporated.

10· · · · · · ·This deposition is being taken remotely on

11· · August 30th, 2024.· The court reporter today is Julie

12· · Rumsey.· I'm Koryn Coalson, the videographer, on behalf of

13· · First Legal Depositions, located in Los Angeles,

14· · California.· This deposition is being videotaped at all

15· · times unless specified to go off the record.

16· · · · · · ·Would all present please identify themselves,

17· · starting with our noticing attorney.

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Philip, you're muted.

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Sorry.· I was muted.

20· · · · · · ·This is Philip Wang of the law firm Russ, August &

21· · Kabat representing Plaintiff, Headwater Research, LLC.

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Robert Vincent from Gibson Dunn

23· · on behalf of the witness and the defendants.

24· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Sorry.

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY ZHANG:· Yi Zhang with Hogan Lovetts.· I'm

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 6 of 157 PageID #:

5346
·1· · representing Google, LLC.

·2· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Okay.· Really quickly, before

·3· · we go on.· Mr. Turnbull, I've spotted -- spotlit you for my

·4· · video.· If you could leave that on and click view and click

·5· · gallery if you want to see everybody.· Thank you.

·6· · · · · · ·Would the court reporter please swear in our

·7· · witness.

·8· · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· My name is

·9· · Julie Rumsey, California Certified Shorthand Reporter

10· · Number 14144.· The stenographic record is the official

11· · record pursuant to C.C.P. 2025.

12· · · · · · ·Before we proceed, I will ask counsel to agree on

13· · the record that there is no objection to this deposition

14· · officer administering a binding oath to a witness not

15· · appearing personally before me, located in Vancouver,

16· · British Columbia.

17· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· No objection from Plaintiff

18· · Headwater.

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· No objection from Defendants.

20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

21· · · · · · · · · · · ·DR. DONALD TURNBULL,

22· · · · · · · called as a witness herein, having been

23· · administered an oath remotely in accordance with C.C.P.

24· · Section 2096, was examined and testified as follows:

25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ---o0o---

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 7 of 157 PageID #:

5347
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION

·2· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·3· · Q.· · · ·Good morning, Dr. Turnbull.

·4· · A.· · · ·Hi, there.

·5· · Q.· · · ·We have met before.· Correct?

·6· · A.· · · ·I think -- yes.

·7· · Q.· · · ·I'm getting a feeling of deja vu.· It was not too

·8· · long ago where we had another deposition, correct?

·9· · A.· · · ·I don't remember how long ago, but, yes, that

10· · seems familiar.

11· · Q.· · · ·So as I mentioned before, I represent the

12· · plaintiff, Headwater Research, LLC, in these cases.· And I

13· · will just note for the record that these are cases in the

14· · Eastern District of Texas with the numbers 2:23-CV-00379

15· · and -352, with -- for the same numbers.

16· · · · · · ·Does that sound right to you?

17· · A.· · · ·That -- that probably is correct.· Yes.

18· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that you are under oath today?

19· · A.· · · ·Oh, yes.

20· · Q.· · · ·How many times have you testified under oath

21· · before?

22· · A.· · · ·Oh, gosh.· I would think close to 50 times,

23· · whether it's depositions or trial or in-court appearances.

24· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that, even though we're on Zoom

25· · today, that the testimony you give under oath here is

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 8 of 157 PageID #:

5348
·1· · subject to the same penalty of perjury as if you were

·2· · testing -- testifying in a court of law?

·3· · A.· · · ·Oh, sure.· Yes.

·4· · Q.· · · ·I'm going to assume that you understand the

·5· · questions I ask you unless you tell me that you don't

·6· · understand them.

·7· · · · · · ·Is that fair?

·8· · A.· · · ·That is fair.

·9· · Q.· · · ·And if anything is unclear, you will need to ask

10· · me to clarify.

11· · A.· · · ·Excellent.

12· · Q.· · · ·Is there anything that would prevent you from

13· · thinking clearly and testifying truthfully today?

14· · A.· · · ·No.

15· · Q.· · · ·If at any point you need to take a break during

16· · your deposition, just let me know.· I only ask that we

17· · don't take a break while a question is pending.

18· · A.· · · ·Okay.· Thank you.

19· · Q.· · · ·And we'll try to take a break every hour or so,

20· · but if you ever need one, just let me know.

21· · A.· · · ·Okay.· Thank you.

22· · Q.· · · ·So are you aware that you are here to testify

23· · regarding a claim construction declaration you submitted in

24· · this case?

25· · A.· · · ·Yes.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 9 of 157 PageID #:

5349
·1· · Q.· · · ·Are you aware that you submitted two declarations?

·2· · A.· · · ·So far, yes.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Are you planning to submit more?

·4· · A.· · · ·If there's a need for it, I would be able to.

·5· · Q.· · · ·And so one declaration was on behalf of T-Mobile

·6· · or the T-Mobile defendants; is that correct?

·7· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·All right.· And another declaration was on behalf

·9· · of Verizon.· Does that sound correct?

10· · A.· · · ·Yes.

11· · Q.· · · ·And the T-Mobile declaration was submitted

12· · earlier, correct?

13· · A.· · · ·That's right.· A couple weeks prior to the Verizon

14· · declaration.

15· · Q.· · · ·We will look at it shortly, but I just want to

16· · establish some background information.

17· · · · · · ·The T-Mobile declaration is dated August 9th,

18· · 2024.· Does that sound right?

19· · A.· · · ·That does sound right.

20· · Q.· · · ·And the Verizon declaration -- I believe you said

21· · it was later, and the date I have for that is August 24th,

22· · 2024.· Does that --

23· · A.· · · ·That does sound right.· Yes.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

25· · · · · · ·Are these two declarations the same in substance?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 10 of 157 PageID #:

5350
·1· · A.· · · ·Yes.· I think there is very minor differences

·2· · between them.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Are you aware of any substantive differences

·4· · between them, apart from the case caption and so forth?

·5· · A.· · · ·I think the Verizon declaration in two paragraphs

·6· · has one sentence omitted, and it's about the file history

·7· · of the patents.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Apart from that, are you aware of any other

·9· · differences?

10· · A.· · · ·No.· Nothing sitting here right now.

11· · Q.· · · ·And when I say "differences," I mean substantive

12· · or in your opinions, you know.· I'm not talking about the

13· · case caption, that sort...

14· · A.· · · ·Sure.· No.· No differences in my opinions.

15· · Q.· · · ·So your recollection is that the Verizon

16· · declaration two paragraphs says one sentence omitted and

17· · it's about the file history of the patents, correct?

18· · A.· · · ·I think both times.· Yes.

19· · Q.· · · ·And is there any material that was added?

20· · A.· · · ·Nothing that comes to mind.

21· · Q.· · · ·The sentences that were omitted, why were they

22· · omitted?

23· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

24· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.· To the extent

25· · there is -- the discussions you've had were -- would reveal

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 11 of 157 PageID #:

5351
·1· · any attorney-client communications, I'd instruct you not to

·2· · answer.

·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· They were just omitted in editing.

·4· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·5· · Q.· · · ·By you?

·6· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Did you discuss the removal with your counsel?

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Again, I want to caution the

·9· · witness not to disclose the contents of any discussions

10· · that he may have had, the substance of any discussions that

11· · they had with counsel.

12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I'll take counsel's advice

13· · regarding that question.

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·So I think my question was, did you discuss the

16· · removal with your counsel, calling for a yes or no.

17· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Again -- sorry.· Go ahead.

18· · Finish.

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· And, Counsel, I would encourage

20· · you to limit speaking objections, and be clear whether

21· · you're instructing the witness not to answer or not.· And,

22· · you know, if that's what you're doing, please make that

23· · clear.

24· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· I am being clear, and I'm not

25· · making speaking objections.· So are you finished with your

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 12 of 157 PageID #:

5352
·1· · question?

·2· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Yes.

·3· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Okay.· I'm going to object and

·4· · instruct the witness not to answer to the extent the

·5· · response would disclose substantive conversations that the

·6· · witness had with counsel.

·7· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·8· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Without asking you to disclose the

·9· · substance of conversations, Dr. Turnbull, are you able to

10· · answer yes or no to my question, which is, did you discuss

11· · the removal of the sentences that you referred to with your

12· · counsel?

13· · A.· · · ·I won't answer that at counsel's advice.

14· · Q.· · · ·So you're following your counsel's instruction on

15· · that?

16· · A.· · · ·That's right.

17· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

18· · · · · · ·Since the substance of your two declarations are

19· · substantially the same or the same, do you agree with me on

20· · that?

21· · A.· · · ·Yes.

22· · Q.· · · ·So if we talk about one declaration, will you

23· · understand your testimony to also apply to the other

24· · declaration?

25· · A.· · · ·I'll agree to that.· Yes.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 13 of 157 PageID #:

5353
·1· · Q.· · · ·And so I want to first ask you about the first

·2· · declaration that you submitted on behalf of T-Mobile on

·3· · August 8th, 2024.· Are you with me?

·4· · A.· · · ·August 9th?

·5· · Q.· · · ·Excuse me.· August 9th, 2024?

·6· · A.· · · ·Sure.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Who wrote that declaration?

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I collaborated with counsel. I

10· · certainly didn't type every single character.· There were

11· · some things that got pasted in.· A very substantial portion

12· · of it, I did type.· I edited.· But regardless of who typed

13· · every character, it does represent, you know, my thoughts

14· · and opinions.

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·You said that some things got pasted in.· What got

17· · pasted in?

18· · A.· · · ·Oh, like quotes from the patent or the figures,

19· · for example, things like that.

20· · Q.· · · ·That would be something that you rely on counsel

21· · for, to provide?

22· · A.· · · ·It could have been that they pasted some in.· It

23· · could have been that I did.· I just don't recall the

24· · editing process at that level.

25· · Q.· · · ·Are you aware of anything else that got pasted in,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 14 of 157 PageID #:

5354
·1· · or are you referring to anything else?

·2· · A.· · · ·It's possible some of the legal boilerplate was

·3· · pasted in.· But, of course, I reviewed it, and if there

·4· · were any questions about it, I edited it to be either more

·5· · readable or more understandable to at least me since it

·6· · represents my opinions and the basis that my opinions come

·7· · from.

·8· · Q.· · · ·So the legal standard section of your report is

·9· · the basis where your opinions come from?

10· · A.· · · ·It would be one part, but that's why it's in the

11· · report.

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

13· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

14· · Q.· · · ·So when you offer claim construction opinions in a

15· · case and you've -- strike that.

16· · · · · · ·You've been an expert in dozens of patent cases,

17· · correct?

18· · A.· · · ·Yes.

19· · Q.· · · ·And you have some understanding of legal standards

20· · of patent law or claim construction based on your work from

21· · those cases, correct?

22· · A.· · · ·Yes.· I suspect I've added to it over time, and,

23· · of course, I guess the laws underlying the rules have

24· · changed over time as well.

25· · Q.· · · ·So when you offer opinions like in a declaration,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 15 of 157 PageID #:

5355
·1· · do you rely on your understanding of the law formed from

·2· · different cases, or do you just rely on what's in your

·3· · report or stated in your report?

·4· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's a good question.· It's

·6· · probably my cumulative experience but also acknowledging

·7· · that there may be precedence that change, or based on the

·8· · breadth or the depth of what I'm asked to analyze, I may

·9· · put more thought into some parts than others.· But,

10· · generally, you know, based on my -- my skills and

11· · experience and, like you suggested, my prior work as well.

12· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

13· · Q.· · · ·And I'm specifically asking about the legal

14· · standards that are applicable to your opinions such as

15· · about claim construction or other aspects of patent law.

16· · · · · · ·And you would give the same answer?

17· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Generally, yes.

19· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

20· · Q.· · · ·So do you have like the same legal standards that

21· · you rely on in each case, or do you get them from counsel

22· · for particular cases?

23· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You know, it's hard to say case by

25· · case.· I certainly don't have a perfect memory of it.· But,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 16 of 157 PageID #:

5356
·1· · nonetheless, I'll certainly review what's relevant and

·2· · include it in the specific report at the time and act from

·3· · those principles.· But, again, I also have, you know, my

·4· · own skills and experience.· Not only as a computer

·5· · scientist but also just someone that, you know, is well

·6· · read enough to be able to understand language and think

·7· · about what the issues are and how clearly something is

·8· · represented or how well written it is so that it is

·9· · potentially clearly understood.

10· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

11· · Q.· · · ·So when you're providing technical opinions in a

12· · case or in a declaration, do you go back and refer to the

13· · legal standards that are set forth at the beginning of your

14· · declaration to inform your technical opinions?

15· · A.· · · ·Oh, yes.· Sometimes I do.

16· · Q.· · · ·And do you rely on any legal standards outside of

17· · what's in your report to inform your technical opinions?

18· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure in this report.· I don't remember the

19· · breadth of what standards I had documented.· But I would

20· · say it would be what's documented in the report.· But,

21· · again, also my skills and experience doing that over time.

22· · Q.· · · ·For your first declaration on August 9th, how many

23· · hours did you spend on that report?

24· · A.· · · ·Huh.· I really don't recall off the top of my

25· · head.· There was a lot to read and review.· Maybe 40 hours,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 17 of 157 PageID #:

5357
·1· · but I could be off by that much as well.· I just don't

·2· · recall.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Do you recall how many days?· Was it 40 hours over

·4· · two grueling days, or was it many days?

·5· · A.· · · ·It was over many days.· Often in the afternoon. I

·6· · think that's my habit for many things.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Would you say it would be a week or two weeks?

·8· · Can you give me a sense of that?

·9· · A.· · · ·I would say it would extend over a two-week period

10· · because I might set it aside and read, think about it, go

11· · back and edit it.· So forth.

12· · Q.· · · ·When were you retained to serve as an expert in

13· · the T-Mobile case?

14· · A.· · · ·I should have known you would ask that, but I just

15· · don't remember.

16· · Q.· · · ·Do you remember relative to when you started

17· · working on the declaration?

18· · A.· · · ·Well, certainly it would be before I started

19· · working on the declaration, of course.· But beyond that, I

20· · don't recall.· Certainly in the last several months.

21· · Q.· · · ·And you were returned -- retained by or through

22· · the law firm of Gibson Dunn; is that correct?

23· · A.· · · ·That's right.

24· · Q.· · · ·And which counsel did you work with on your

25· · report?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 18 of 157 PageID #:

5358
·1· · A.· · · ·I don't recall the breadth of the people that I

·2· · worked with.· I would think primarily it's Mr. Vincent here

·3· · that's with us today.

·4· · Q.· · · ·And for the second declaration that you submitted

·5· · for the Verizon case, we talked about how your opinions are

·6· · the same in that report, right?

·7· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·And Verizon is also represented by Gibson Dunn,

·9· · correct?

10· · A.· · · ·My understanding, yes.

11· · Q.· · · ·And did you work with Mr. Vincent on that second

12· · report as well?

13· · A.· · · ·He was involved.· Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·Were different people involved in the Verizon case

15· · with the Verizon report?

16· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure.

17· · Q.· · · ·And how many hours did you spend preparing the

18· · Verizon report?

19· · A.· · · ·Fewer hours.· It was kind of nice to have the

20· · pause between the reports to go back and review it and read

21· · it again.· But certainly significantly fewer hours.

22· · Q.· · · ·Because your opinions were the same, and you had

23· · already done the net work on the --

24· · A.· · · ·That's right.

25· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I'll go back, and I'll be asking you about

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 19 of 157 PageID #:

5359
·1· · the T-Mobile report, but as we discussed, again, because

·2· · they're the same, you understand, to the extent applicable,

·3· · that they apply to both reports.

·4· · · · · · ·Does your report or declaration contain a complete

·5· · statement of your opinions in these cases?

·6· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Sitting here, do you have any corrections to the

·8· · two reports?

·9· · A.· · · ·There might be one place -- if we stumble cross it

10· · or it becomes relevant, I'll probably see it -- where I

11· · wished just to be parallel in the sentence structure. I

12· · had put a word in quotes.· What that word is, I don't

13· · remember off the top of my head.· If we stumble across it,

14· · I'll note it for you.· But I think that's about it.

15· · · · · · ·Again, having the chance to go back and look at

16· · the report again before I submitted the report on behalf of

17· · Verizon, I didn't see any editing errors that I made.

18· · Again, we may still stumble across some today.· And if we

19· · do, I'll let you know.

20· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And what you mentioned was just at one

21· · point where you had put a word in quotes?

22· · A.· · · ·No, I should have -- I should have put a word in

23· · quotes just to make the sentence structure parallel.· It's

24· · probably a very fine point.· If we stumble across it, I'll

25· · point it out.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 20 of 157 PageID #:

5360
·1· · Q.· · · ·And was that something -- a correction you would

·2· · make to both reports, or it was made in one and not the

·3· · other?

·4· · A.· · · ·I think it would be something that, if I wanted to

·5· · fix, I would fix it for both.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Got it.

·7· · · · · · ·And apart from that, you did not see any other

·8· · corrections?

·9· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· Sitting here today, nothing else comes to

10· · mind.

11· · Q.· · · ·Do your reports contain a complete statement of

12· · your opinions that you intend to offer in this case?

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would say they contain my opinions

15· · so far related to the case.

16· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

17· · Q.· · · ·Do they contain your opinions that you intend to

18· · offer for claim construction proceedings in this case?

19· · A.· · · ·They do.

20· · Q.· · · ·Do they contain a complete statement of your

21· · opinions that you intend to offer for claim construction

22· · proceedings in this case?

23· · A.· · · ·I would say that they're complete to date. I

24· · don't know if someone would ask me to do any additional

25· · work or not.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 21 of 157 PageID #:

5361
·1· · Q.· · · ·Do you currently plan to?

·2· · A.· · · ·Not unless someone asks me to.

·3· · Q.· · · ·What did you do to prepare for today's deposition?

·4· · A.· · · ·Reviewed a lot of the documents, the patents, the

·5· · file histories, my reports, and had review session with

·6· · counsel, including Mr. Vincent, who is with us here today.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Dr. Turnbull, I believe, in our last deposition,

·8· · we entered into a stipulation, and I want to propose it

·9· · again.· I believe we agreed that whenever one of us said

10· · "report," it would also mean declaration, and if one of us

11· · said "declaration," it would also mean report.

12· · · · · · ·Can we agree to that as well?

13· · A.· · · ·I will agree to that.· I often use them

14· · interchangeably.· It's probably not good to not be

15· · consistent, but I think it's an error we both seem to be

16· · making.

17· · Q.· · · ·Thank you.· I think we've both been toggling back

18· · and forth, and both of us have been calling it both things.

19· · Thank you, Dr. Turnbull.

20· · · · · · ·So you mentioned that you reviewed a lot of

21· · documents, the patents, the file histories, your reports or

22· · declarations, and had a review session with counsel.

23· · · · · · ·Correct?

24· · A.· · · ·Yes.

25· · Q.· · · ·When you say you reviewed the patents, are you

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 22 of 157 PageID #:

5362
·1· · referring to the '541 and the '613 patents?

·2· · A.· · · ·Yes.· At least those.

·3· · Q.· · · ·What other patents?

·4· · A.· · · ·I think there were some other Headwater patents,

·5· · and I suspect it's possible that I opened them up at some

·6· · point just in reviewing.

·7· · Q.· · · ·When you say that "there were some other Headwater

·8· · patents," do you mean patents asserted in these cases?

·9· · A.· · · ·Or at least were asserted in these cases.

10· · Q.· · · ·What do you mean, "or at least were asserted in

11· · these cases"?

12· · A.· · · ·I don't remember if -- you know, I don't really

13· · check the docket to see if all of the patents in the

14· · original complaint are still at play, but they're just all

15· · stored in a folder on my -- on my computer together.

16· · Q.· · · ·Did you review any Headwater patents that are not

17· · asserted in these cases?

18· · A.· · · ·I don't think so.

19· · Q.· · · ·But you have -- you have in the past, correct?

20· · A.· · · ·Yes.

21· · Q.· · · ·Did you look at the -- the other Headwater patents

22· · that you may have opined on before in preparing for your

23· · declaration?

24· · A.· · · ·I don't think so.

25· · Q.· · · ·And you said the file histories.· Do you recall

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 23 of 157 PageID #:

5363
·1· · which file histories you reviewed?

·2· · A.· · · ·Oh, probably just for the '541 and the '613

·3· · patents.

·4· · Q.· · · ·And then, in addition to the patents and file

·5· · histories, you said that you reviewed a lot of documents.

·6· · Can you clarify what you meant by "documents"?

·7· · A.· · · ·Part of what I meant was what we just discussed,

·8· · the patents and my report and so forth.· That might be the

·9· · breadth of it, in fact.

10· · Q.· · · ·Can you recall any other documents apart from the

11· · patents and the file histories and your reports?

12· · A.· · · ·Not off the top of my head.· No.

13· · Q.· · · ·And you said you also met with counsel.· Was that

14· · via Zoom?

15· · A.· · · ·Yes.

16· · Q.· · · ·And how many meetings did you have with counsel?

17· · A.· · · ·Just one.

18· · Q.· · · ·And about how long was that meeting?

19· · A.· · · ·Not particularly long.· Maybe a couple hours.

20· · Q.· · · ·And you said that Mr. Vincent was part of the

21· · meeting?

22· · A.· · · ·That's right.

23· · Q.· · · ·Do you -- do you recall anyone else?

24· · A.· · · ·Not to get their names perfectly correct, I don't.

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· I would like to go ahead and

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 24 of 157 PageID #:

5364
·1· · introduce your two reports as exhibits, and what I'll do

·2· · is -- and I think we did this before, Dr. Turnbull.· I'll

·3· · send them in the Zoom.

·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· And so -- if you -- if you get the

·6· · chance, if you could download them.· And when they're

·7· · ready, let me know.

·8· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

·9· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Yes.· I will be -- Exhibit 1 and

10· · Exhibit 2.

11· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 1 was presented and subsequently marked

12· · · · · · ·for identification.)

13· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 2 was presented and subsequently marked

14· · · · · · ·for identification.)

15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I downloaded both of them,

16· · and they both seem to appear and look just fine.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·Could you open the file that begins with

19· · Exhibit 1.

20· · A.· · · ·I've got it open.

21· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Thank you.

22· · · · · · ·So I will introduce as Exhibit 1 a document

23· · entitled Declaration of Dr. Donald Turnbull, and on the

24· · first page has the caption for the T-Mobile case with the

25· · case numbers 223-CV-00379-JRG-RSP.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 25 of 157 PageID #:

5365
·1· · · · · · ·Do you -- do you see that, Dr. Turnbull?

·2· · A.· · · ·I do.· I see that on the first page of Exhibit 1.

·3· · Q.· · · ·And this document is 30 pages, correct?

·4· · A.· · · ·It looks like it.· Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Does this appear to be a true and correct copy of

·6· · the declaration that you submitted in the case on behalf of

·7· · T-Mobile?

·8· · A.· · · ·It does.· It does.· I scrolled down, and I see my

·9· · signature on page 30 and the date, August the 9th, as we

10· · discussed previously.

11· · Q.· · · ·Could you open Exhibit 2, and turn to the first

12· · page of that.

13· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I've got it open.· I'm with you.

14· · Q.· · · ·And so I will introduce as Exhibit 2 a document,

15· · the first page says declaration of Dr. Donald Turnbull.· It

16· · has the case caption for the Verizon defendants and has the

17· · case number 223-CV-00352.

18· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · A.· · · ·I do.· I'm with you.

20· · Q.· · · ·And, Dr. Turnbull, does this appear to be a true

21· · and correct copy of your second declaration that we talked

22· · about submitted in the Verizon case?

23· · A.· · · ·It looks like it is, and I see that there's

24· · several pages attached as Exhibit A, which looks like a

25· · copy of my current CV as well in that PDF file.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 26 of 157 PageID #:

5366
·1· · Q.· · · ·So if you turn to -- so this document, Exhibit 2,

·2· · it's 41 pages, correct?

·3· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·4· · Q.· · · ·And if you turn to page 30 of the document, it has

·5· · your signature on that, right?

·6· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·7· · Q.· · · ·And it says, this declaration was executed on

·8· · this 24th day of August 2024.

·9· · A.· · · ·That's right.

10· · Q.· · · ·And then this document also has an Exhibit A

11· · appended to it.· Does this Exhibit A at the end of the

12· · document appear to be a true and correct copy of your CV?

13· · A.· · · ·It does.

14· · Q.· · · ·Can you please turn to page 9 of your CV, 9 of 10.

15· · A.· · · ·Okay.· So that'd be page 40 of the PDF?

16· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

17· · A.· · · ·That's Exhibit 2?

18· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

19· · · · · · ·Do you see on this page it identifies cases

20· · involving reports, declarations, in-court appearances,

21· · testimony, or depositions?· Do you see that?

22· · A.· · · ·I do see that.

23· · Q.· · · ·Are these all of the cases that you've done that

24· · work in or for a certain period of time?

25· · A.· · · ·I think they represent all of them unless I've

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 27 of 157 PageID #:

5367
·1· · just forgotten to include one.· That should be a pretty

·2· · complete list.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So the first case, you were retained by the

·4· · party Endeca Technologies, Inc.

·5· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · A.· · · ·I do.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Because that party name is bolded, right?· That

·8· · means you were retained by them?

·9· · A.· · · ·That's right.· That's what I formatted everything

10· · in this section to do.

11· · Q.· · · ·Do you -- do you recall when that was or when you

12· · worked on that case?

13· · A.· · · ·I would guess 2005 or 2006 or maybe starting in

14· · 2005 going to 2006.

15· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let's go to the bottom of the list.

16· · Number -- item 36.· Do you see that?

17· · A.· · · ·Okay.· So on the next page, the last page of

18· · the --

19· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· On page 10.

20· · A.· · · ·-- Exhibit 2.· Okay.· I'm with you.

21· · Q.· · · ·And these cases are in chronological order, right?

22· · The oldest first and then the most recent last, right?

23· · A.· · · ·I would say mostly.· There may be some that were

24· · maybe ongoing at the same time, and I -- they might be one

25· · ahead of the other based on either when they finished or

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 28 of 157 PageID #:

5368
·1· · just when I added them.· But they're roughly chronological.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And could you take a look at the last item on the

·3· · list?· Do you see that?· It says Headwater Research, LLC,

·4· · versus Samsung Electronics --

·5· · A.· · · ·I do see that.

·6· · Q.· · · ·-- Company LTD and Samsung Electronics America,

·7· · Inc.?

·8· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·9· · A.· · · ·Yes.

10· · Q.· · · ·Since it's the most recent case or one of the most

11· · recent cases, do you have a recollection of that case?

12· · A.· · · ·Not really, sitting here today.

13· · Q.· · · ·Do you recall being deposed in that case?

14· · A.· · · ·That seems familiar.· Yes.

15· · Q.· · · ·Do you recall being deposed by yours truly in that

16· · case?

17· · A.· · · ·That's what rings a bell.· Yes.

18· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I'm just trying to reorient you.

19· · · · · · ·And in that case, you -- do you -- do you remember

20· · what your opinions were about?

21· · A.· · · ·I think that was also claim construction.

22· · Q.· · · ·And you submitted a declaration in that case?

23· · A.· · · ·That's right.

24· · Q.· · · ·And you were -- you were also deposed?

25· · A.· · · ·That's right.· As you mentioned.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 29 of 157 PageID #:

5369
·1· · Q.· · · ·Did you -- did you review your deposition

·2· · transcript in that case?

·3· · A.· · · ·I did at the time, but I'm not sure I've looked at

·4· · it since then.· I might have, but I don't recall.

·5· · Q.· · · ·You mean you reviewed it sometime shortly after

·6· · the deposition?

·7· · A.· · · ·That -- that seems right.· Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Did you make any corrections to your testimony?

·9· · A.· · · ·I don't recall.

10· · Q.· · · ·Do you stand by the testimony you gave in that

11· · case in that deposition?

12· · A.· · · ·Yes.· By my recollection, yes.

13· · Q.· · · ·Do you recall if you offered in- --

14· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·-- indefiniteness opinions in that case?

17· · A.· · · ·I think I did.

18· · Q.· · · ·Do you know if the court issued a claim

19· · construction order in that case?

20· · A.· · · ·I don't know if that's happened yet.

21· · Q.· · · ·And so have you reviewed any claim construction

22· · order in that case?

23· · A.· · · ·I don't recall.

24· · Q.· · · ·You don't recall one way or the other, or you

25· · don't recall reviewing it?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 30 of 157 PageID #:

5370
·1· · A.· · · ·I don't recall one way or the other sitting here

·2· · right now.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Have you reviewed any claim construction orders in

·4· · other Headwater cases?

·5· · A.· · · ·I did look at one other one.· I just don't

·6· · remember if it's related to what we're just discussing from

·7· · my CV or not.

·8· · Q.· · · ·The one other one, do you know if it was this

·9· · case?

10· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

11· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

12· · Q.· · · ·Let me reask.

13· · · · · · ·The one other claim construction order that you

14· · did look at, do you know if it was this case in item 36?

15· · A.· · · ·I don't remember the number that was on the first

16· · page of it.

17· · Q.· · · ·Do you remember anything about that order, like

18· · what it was about?

19· · A.· · · ·It was about claim construction and what the judge

20· · decided on.

21· · Q.· · · ·And do you remember what issues the court decided

22· · or what terms?

23· · A.· · · ·Not specifically.· I would have to look at it to

24· · refresh my memory.· I think it was by Judge Payne.· That

25· · rings a bell.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 31 of 157 PageID #:

5371
·1· · Q.· · · ·Unfortunately, that does not narrow it down.

·2· · · · · · ·Let me ask you the following:· Do you remember

·3· · when you reviewed that order?· Was it in preparing for this

·4· · deposition or in preparing your reports?

·5· · A.· · · ·I would say the former.· It's something I looked

·6· · at relatively recently.

·7· · Q.· · · ·In preparing for this deposition?

·8· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·9· · Q.· · · ·And that was the first time that you had seen it?

10· · A.· · · ·As far as I can remember, yes.

11· · Q.· · · ·Dr. Turnbull, since we have Exhibits 1 and 2 open,

12· · would you be able to point me to the -- to the sentence

13· · that was omitted that you testified about this morning?

14· · A.· · · ·I can take a look if you'll give me a minute. I

15· · think I said there were two sentences that were omitted if

16· · I recall.

17· · · · · · ·I'm still looking here, if you'll bear with me.

18· · · · · · ·I don't see it now.· I don't remember exactly

19· · where it was at.· Again, if we -- if we talk about

20· · something and I see it, I'll point it out to you.

21· · Q.· · · ·And was your recollection that it would have been

22· · in the summary of the prosecution history?

23· · A.· · · ·That was my recollection, and I don't see it.· So

24· · I don't know if I edited it out in the first place or not.

25· · I just can't find it here.· I know it's not the largest

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 32 of 157 PageID #:

5372
·1· · declaration in the world, but I just don't see it.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Thank you, Dr. Turnbull.

·3· · · · · · ·Let's talk about Exhibit 1, and I think you can

·4· · close Exhibit 2 if it's taking up space since we agree that

·5· · the declarations were substantially the same.

·6· · A.· · · ·Okay.· Thank you.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Can you turn to paragraph 20 of your report in

·8· · Exhibit 1.

·9· · A.· · · ·I'm with you.· It looks like it's page 7.

10· · Q.· · · ·Right.

11· · · · · · ·And so, paragraph 20, you list that the materials

12· · that you considered in forming your opinions in the

13· · declaration, correct?

14· · A.· · · ·That's right.

15· · Q.· · · ·And this list does not have any claim construction

16· · orders, correct?

17· · A.· · · ·No.· That's not listed here.

18· · Q.· · · ·And so, if you had reviewed certain claim

19· · construction orders before submitting the report, you would

20· · have listed it in this paragraph.

21· · A.· · · ·I would hope that I would.· Yes.

22· · Q.· · · ·And that supports what you said before, if you did

23· · look at a claim construction order, it would have been

24· · after --

25· · A.· · · ·Exactly right.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 33 of 157 PageID #:

5373
·1· · Q.· · · ·-- this report?

·2· · · · · · ·And was that also after submitting your report in

·3· · the Verizon case?

·4· · A.· · · ·I think so.· Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· At the time that you submitted this

·6· · T-Mobile report, were there any other documents that you

·7· · relied on that are not on this list?

·8· · A.· · · ·Nothing comes to mind.· You know, of course, in,

·9· · you know, the history of me being a computer scientist, I'm

10· · sure I review documents all the time, programming

11· · documents, to just be more educated about my field.· But

12· · nothing that fits into these types of documents.

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And then, sitting here today, you mentioned

14· · a claim construction order in a -- in a Headwater case that

15· · you did look at.· Are there any other documents that you

16· · reviewed or looked at that are not in this list?

17· · A.· · · ·Nothing else comes to mind right now.

18· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I'm turning back to paragraph 20.· Do you

19· · see how you list the four patents and their file histories?

20· · A.· · · ·That's right.· I see that.

21· · Q.· · · ·Did you review the references cited in the file

22· · histories?

23· · A.· · · ·I might have, now that you say that.· Or at least

24· · I read through the list of the references, I think.· Even

25· · one of the papers that's an academic paper listed is

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 34 of 157 PageID #:

5374
·1· · something that I read long ago.· It rang a bell.

·2· · Q.· · · ·So how did you read the file history?· Did you

·3· · kind of skim through it or, I mean, walk through it?· Can

·4· · you kind of describe that?

·5· · A.· · · ·I think they were pretty big.· I probably pulled

·6· · up the first page probably for all of them and just

·7· · reviewed generally what it said there.· And then might have

·8· · scrolled through it.· There's always, you know, different

·9· · formatting and things like that that may have kept my

10· · attention probably more than it should sometimes.

11· · · · · · ·And I suspect, over time, if I went to look at it

12· · again after getting an overview, I might do some keyword

13· · searching.· But also, scrolling around, I'm never convinced

14· · that all of the optical character recognition or what's

15· · inserted are perfectly matching to what we see on the PDF

16· · itself.· So I might do some scrolling around to make sure I

17· · haven't missed something.

18· · · · · · ·Or find something that's, you know, kind of

19· · interesting to me and then read, you know, above and below

20· · that section as well.

21· · Q.· · · ·And you said you reviewed the list of references

22· · cited for the patents?

23· · A.· · · ·I would say I noted them.· I, you know, scrolled

24· · through it to look and see if anything popped up that rang

25· · a bell or I saw a name that I might know or something like

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 35 of 157 PageID #:

5375
·1· · that, because often, when you're working in an area you

·2· · know, there might be something that strikes you as familiar

·3· · or it's like, oh, yes.

·4· · Q.· · · ·And did you do that for each of the asserted

·5· · patents?

·6· · A.· · · ·That, I'm not sure.· Being there was four of them,

·7· · I don't remember if I did that four times or, you know,

·8· · partially on one and then coming back to it later.· I just

·9· · don't recall that.

10· · Q.· · · ·Do you know if you did that for the '541 and

11· · the '613 patents?

12· · A.· · · ·I'd say the '541 for sure since it's kind of the

13· · earliest patent.· It's probably the one that I looked at

14· · more just like we're kind of looking at, you know,

15· · something else here, but beyond that, I don't recall.

16· · Q.· · · ·And so for the '541 patent, for example, if you

17· · look at the list of references cited, it doesn't just have

18· · like the name of the patent or the number?· Or did -- would

19· · it have the name of the patents?

20· · A.· · · ·I think sometimes it would have the number, which

21· · tells me something about maybe the approximate date of the

22· · patent, at least when it was filed.· But often

23· · references -- like I said, I think there was an academic

24· · paper in there as well.· I think the file history might

25· · have mentioned other references as well.· And maybe those

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 36 of 157 PageID #:

5376
·1· · stuck out as something that was interesting, and I looked

·2· · at those or at least looked at what the title was about,

·3· · trying to get an idea if it looked like it was something

·4· · that I should go look at.· But, yeah, I certainly didn't

·5· · exhaustively look up the many, many, many references that

·6· · are included.

·7· · Q.· · · ·You mentioned an academic paper, and you said it

·8· · was something that you read long ago.

·9· · A.· · · ·That's right.· Yeah.· I remember it rang a bell.

10· · Q.· · · ·What paper was that?

11· · A.· · · ·Without looking at the patent, I don't recall

12· · specifically, but I remember it was one of the references,

13· · and it was something that I knew.· I think it was related

14· · to location-based services.· Maybe it was one of the papers

15· · that used that term early on.

16· · Q.· · · ·Location-based services?

17· · A.· · · ·Uh-huh.

18· · Q.· · · ·Which is an interest of yours?· That topic?

19· · A.· · · ·Oh, yeah, certainly.· I've been doing work related

20· · to that for a long, long time.· I would say since probably

21· · the late '90s.

22· · Q.· · · ·Do you see, at the bottom of this list, you have

23· · defendants and plaintiffs exchange of preliminary proposed

24· · claim constructions and extrinsic evidence?

25· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 37 of 157 PageID #:

5377
·1· · A.· · · ·I do.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And did you just review the documents or the

·3· · documents and whatever was cited therein?

·4· · A.· · · ·I suspect both the claim construction and at least

·5· · some of the documents that are referenced in it.

·6· · Q.· · · ·But this list just says the document, it seems.

·7· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I'm not sure what "and

·9· · extrinsic evidence" means in terms -- does that mean other

10· · documents or not.

11· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

12· · Q.· · · ·Do you see that you have -- you have four IPR

13· · petitions on this list?

14· · A.· · · ·I do.

15· · Q.· · · ·What do you mean by "accompanying papers"?

16· · A.· · · ·Probably the references that were used in the

17· · IPRs.

18· · Q.· · · ·Would it include the exhibits to the IPR petition?

19· · A.· · · ·I think we're saying the same thing.· Yes.· Some

20· · of the documents like prior art references.· There could be

21· · other documents as well.· That's probably -- I remember the

22· · references probably more than some of the legal documents.

23· · Q.· · · ·Have you served as an IPR expert before in IPR

24· · proceedings?

25· · A.· · · ·Yes.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 38 of 157 PageID #:

5378
·1· · Q.· · · ·Many times?

·2· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·3· · Q.· · · ·For both petitioners and patent owners?

·4· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · ·And you know that an IPR petition almost always

·6· · includes an expert declaration?

·7· · A.· · · ·I guess all the ones I worked on have.

·8· · Q.· · · ·And so did you review the expert declarations that

·9· · were accompanying these petitions?

10· · A.· · · ·If I've got it listed here, that must have been

11· · something I looked at, but I really don't recall, sitting

12· · here right now.

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And would it -- your review of the

14· · accompanying papers, it would include the prior art

15· · references of record in those IPRs?

16· · A.· · · ·It certainly could.· I don't remember how many

17· · there were or, you know, specifically looking at them, but

18· · if I was provided them and I've got them listed here, I

19· · suspect I at least had them to look at.

20· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And would it include the prior art

21· · references that are cited as background references for the

22· · IPR?

23· · A.· · · ·I'm going to say yes, but I'm not sure even what

24· · you mean by "background."· Would there be two kinds of

25· · references?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 39 of 157 PageID #:

5379
·1· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.· Let -- let -- no, let me clarify my

·2· · question.

·3· · · · · · ·So you know in an IPR there will be the prior art

·4· · that's relied upon, right?· If there's like three grounds,

·5· · there will be the prior art, either its anticipation ground

·6· · or part of an obviousness combination.· The ones that the

·7· · opinion is based on.

·8· · · · · · ·But apart from that, sometimes there can be

·9· · additional references or additional prior art discussed,

10· · relied on, not as -- not under an IPR ground but as

11· · background or for other points.

12· · A.· · · ·Okay.

13· · Q.· · · ·You're nodding your head, so I think you

14· · understand.

15· · · · · · ·My question is, then, did you limit your review to

16· · only, you know, the prior art of record for the grounds

17· · or -- or it went beyond -- went beyond that?

18· · A.· · · ·I don't remember.· I suspect, if there was

19· · something that I was provided or that caught my interest, I

20· · would have gone to find it if it were another piece of

21· · background.· I just don't recall from the breadth of the

22· · documents there which were background and which were not.

23· · Q.· · · ·Did you rely on the IPR petitions or the

24· · accompanying papers in the substance of your report?

25· · A.· · · ·I don't think I reference them anyplace else in my

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 40 of 157 PageID #:

5380
·1· · report.· No.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Why not?

·3· · A.· · · ·Not sure.· Just didn't.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Did you feel like it was not relevant?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I didn't really think about it in

·7· · that term.· Yeah.· I just don't remember.

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Let's go off the record.

·9· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

10· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Yeah.

11· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Wait.

12· · · · · · ·The time is now 10:01 a.m.· We're going off the

13· · video record.

14· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

15· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 10:11 a.m.

16· · We're back on the video record.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·Welcome back, Dr. Turnbull.

19· · A.· · · ·Thank you.

20· · Q.· · · ·Did you have any discussions with your counsel

21· · during the break?

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· You can answer that question

23· · yes or no.

24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.

25· · /////

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 41 of 157 PageID #:

5381
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·Did you discuss the substance of your testimony?

·3· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· I'm going to instruct the

·4· · witness not to answer the question if it involves

·5· · discussions of the substance of what was discussed with

·6· · counsel during the break.

·7· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·8· · Q.· · · ·So my question was a yes or a no, did you discuss

·9· · the substance of your testimony --

10· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· I'm going to -- sorry.

11· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

12· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.

13· · · · · · ·-- without disclosing what the substance was, can

14· · you answer that yes or no?

15· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· I'm going to instruct the

16· · witness not to answer.

17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· I'll take counsel's advice

18· · and not answer that.

19· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

20· · Q.· · · ·You'll follow counsel's instruction on that?

21· · A.· · · ·(Nods head.)

22· · Q.· · · ·Dr. Turnbull, can you turn to paragraph 21 of your

23· · report.

24· · A.· · · ·I'm with you on page 8.

25· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 42 of 157 PageID #:

5382
·1· · · · · · ·And do you see the heading for that?· It says

·2· · legal principles?

·3· · A.· · · ·I do.

·4· · Q.· · · ·And those are legal principles concerning claim

·5· · construction, correct?

·6· · A.· · · ·Yes.· Generally.· Yes.

·7· · Q.· · · ·We may have discussed this before, but were these

·8· · legal principles provided from -- by counsel?

·9· · A.· · · ·I think, for the most part, they were. I

10· · certainly read through them, analyzed them.· I don't recall

11· · or not whether I edited them.

12· · Q.· · · ·And are these the legal principles you relied on

13· · to form your technical opinions in this case?

14· · A.· · · ·I would say, for the most part, yes.

15· · Q.· · · ·What do you mean, "for the most part"?

16· · A.· · · ·Well, it's discussing the legal principles about

17· · construing patent claims.· So I guess I have some

18· · understanding, even though I'm not an attorney, about just

19· · patents in general and the form of them and what they

20· · should represent.· So that certainly comes into play as

21· · well when I'm trying to build an understanding of the

22· · patent claims for construction.

23· · Q.· · · ·What about the legal standards for claim

24· · construction?· The legal standards I'm speaking of.· Did

25· · you rely on what's stated here or some other understanding?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 43 of 157 PageID #:

5383
·1· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I would say I relied on what's

·3· · stated here in my report.

·4· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·5· · Q.· · · ·So if it's not stated in here, you did not rely on

·6· · that as a legal principle?

·7· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess that's possible.· Without

·9· · looking at this and thinking about the complexity these

10· · represent, I would say that's generally -- generally

11· · accurate.

12· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Can you turn to paragraph 23 of your

14· · report.

15· · A.· · · ·Okay.· That's on the next page, page 9.

16· · Q.· · · ·Right.· So on this page, you discuss an inventor

17· · acting as his or her own lexicographer.· Do you see that?

18· · A.· · · ·I do.

19· · Q.· · · ·You say (as read):

20· · · · · · · · ·I also understand an inventor can use terms in

21· · · · · · ·a manner other than in their plain and ordinary

22· · · · · · ·meaning by clearly --

23· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

24· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

25· · Q.· · · ·I'm sorry.· Let me start over, and I'll read it

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 44 of 157 PageID #:

5384
·1· · slower.

·2· · · · · · ·In paragraph 23 you say (read):

·3· · · · · · · · ·I also understand that an inventor can use

·4· · · · · · ·terms in a manner other than in their plain and

·5· · · · · · ·ordinary meaning by clearly, deliberately, and

·6· · · · · · ·precisely defining those terms in the patent

·7· · · · · · ·specification or in the file history.

·8· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·9· · A.· · · ·Yes.

10· · Q.· · · ·And then you say (as read):

11· · · · · · ·This is referred to as acting as a lexicographer.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·Are you familiar with the term "disclaimer"?

15· · A.· · · ·I certainly have heard it before.

16· · Q.· · · ·What's your understanding of what "disclaimer" is?

17· · A.· · · ·I don't recall the breadth of what it would mean

18· · certainly applied to this.

19· · Q.· · · ·Is the concept of disclaimer discussed in your

20· · report?

21· · A.· · · ·I don't recall that that's in there.

22· · Q.· · · ·And you don't offer any opinions regarding

23· · disclaimer?

24· · A.· · · ·Off the top of my head, no.· I don't recall doing

25· · that.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 45 of 157 PageID #:

5385
·1· · Q.· · · ·In paragraph 23, you do discuss the concept of

·2· · lexicography, correct?

·3· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand disclaimer and lexicography to

·5· · be related or the same thing or similar?

·6· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think my memory is that there is a

·8· · similarity, yes.

·9· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

10· · Q.· · · ·All right.· Do you offer any opinions regarding

11· · lexicography in your report?

12· · A.· · · ·No.

13· · Q.· · · ·Let's look at the terms.· If I can turn your

14· · attention to paragraph 50 of your report.

15· · A.· · · ·Five-zero?

16· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.· 50.

17· · A.· · · ·Okay.· On page 18?

18· · Q.· · · ·On page 18.· Yeah.

19· · · · · · ·And I want you to look at the first heading.· It

20· · says (as read):

21· · · · · · · · ·A, one or more perspective -- dot, dot, dot --

22· · · · · · ·communications over wireless network ('541 patent,

23· · · · · · ·claim 1).

24· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

25· · A.· · · ·I do.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 46 of 157 PageID #:

5386
·1· · Q.· · · ·Do you offer any opinions about lexicography or

·2· · disclaimer for this term?

·3· · A.· · · ·Nothing that I see here.· No.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Can you please turn to paragraph 64 of your

·5· · report.

·6· · A.· · · ·On page 22.· I'm with you.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· Yes.

·8· · · · · · ·And here, do you see the heading B?

·9· · A.· · · ·I do.

10· · Q.· · · ·And do you see that there is three claim terms in

11· · that heading?

12· · A.· · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · ·The first claim term is "backward activity" for

14· · the '541 patent, claim 1, correct?

15· · A.· · · ·Background activity, yes.

16· · Q.· · · ·Background activity.· Okay.

17· · · · · · ·For each of these three terms, or any of these

18· · three terms, do you offer any opinions regarding

19· · lexicography or disclaimer?

20· · A.· · · ·Nothing that I see here.· No.

21· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Can we turn back to paragraph 23 of your

22· · report in the legal standards section.

23· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I'm with you.· We're back on page 9.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· In paragraph 25, you state here --

25· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 47 of 157 PageID #:

5387
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·In paragraph 25, you state your legal

·3· · understanding of "indefiniteness," correct?

·4· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · ·And is that the definition that you applied in

·6· · offering your technical opinions in this declaration?

·7· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·And did you obtain this understanding from

·9· · counsel?

10· · A.· · · ·I suspect I had this understanding prior to this

11· · project because I've done this work before.· I think

12· · paragraph 25 is a good succinct reminder of what I would

13· · base my technical opinions on.

14· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And so can you answer my question, which

15· · was:· Did you obtain this understanding from counsel?

16· · A.· · · ·I guess I'm not sure what you mean by the

17· · question.

18· · Q.· · · ·Did you get this language from counsel to put in

19· · the report?

20· · A.· · · ·I think this was part of the boilerplate, but,

21· · again, I certainly read through it.· I've done work like

22· · this before.· And, again, I don't recall if I edited this.

23· · It certainly seems much more readable than a lot of legal

24· · standards that might imply that it was edited by -- in some

25· · way to be more readable, but I don't recall specifically.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 48 of 157 PageID #:

5388
·1· · Q.· · · ·And if an aspect of the legal standard of

·2· · indefiniteness is not in this paragraph, is it fair to say

·3· · that you would not have applied it?

·4· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know if that's a matter of

·6· · degree of what is missing from this paragraph that you may

·7· · be suggesting or otherwise.· I feel like this represents

·8· · the general concept and my understanding of it and what I

·9· · analyzed or thought about to do that.· So I'm not sure what

10· · else it might include.· I guess you would have to suggest

11· · that to let me know if it doesn't fall within the scope of

12· · what's discussed in this paragraph.

13· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

14· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that "breadth" is not

15· · "indefiniteness"?

16· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Breadth?

18· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

19· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· The claim term being broad, that that does

20· · not make it indefinite.

21· · A.· · · ·I think it would depend on the claim term, but

22· · also breadth probably is relative depending on what that

23· · term is.· Certainly from a technical standpoint.

24· · Q.· · · ·What do you mean, "certainly from a technical

25· · standpoint"?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 49 of 157 PageID #:

5389
·1· · A.· · · ·Well, the language of the claim term, depending on

·2· · what that language is -- some terms might be much broader

·3· · than others, especially since we're talking about software

·4· · where you really should be specific or precise, as I

·5· · believe I discuss in this paragraph, sufficiently precise.

·6· · So it might depend on the term.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Do you agree that breadth alone does not render a

·8· · term indefinite?

·9· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure.· I think it would

11· · depend on the context if there was an example or if there

12· · was something I could examine to think about that.

13· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

14· · Q.· · · ·Do you agree that the indefiniteness requirement

15· · must take into account the inherent limitations of

16· · language, reasonable certainty in light of the subject

17· · matter, and not absolute precision as required?

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· We're back to that word "precision."

20· · I think, as I have here, it needs to be sufficiently

21· · precise.· So, again, maybe there's the context of what the

22· · claim language is trying to describe.· Certainly in the

23· · eyes of myself or a person of skill.

24· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

25· · Q.· · · ·But would you agree with what I said?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 50 of 157 PageID #:

5390
·1· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think you'd have to read that back

·3· · to me now that I've already spoken.

·4· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·5· · Q.· · · ·Sure.

·6· · · · · · ·The definiteness requirement must take into

·7· · account the inherent limitations of language.

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·9· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

10· · Q.· · · ·Do you agree with that?

11· · A.· · · ·I -- I'm not really sure what that means.

12· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that definiteness can be met by

13· · reasonable certainty in light of the subject matter and not

14· · absolute precision as required?

15· · A.· · · ·I think, just like I say here, it needs to be

16· · sufficiently precise.· I'm not sure what absolute precision

17· · really means.· That modifier doesn't really help me.· It

18· · just should be precise or, again, like I say here,

19· · sufficiently precise.· Absolute, again, might be a little

20· · relative depending on the term itself.

21· · Q.· · · ·All right.· Do you agree that absolute precision

22· · is not required?

23· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it might depend.· You know,

25· · if we're talking about software, precision matters.· So it

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 51 of 157 PageID #:

5391
·1· · would just depend on what we'd be looking at.

·2· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·3· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that indefiniteness must be

·4· · proven by clear and convincing evidence?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yes.· And I think that's probably where maybe

·6· · we're getting tied up a little bit.· Absolute precision

·7· · seems to be something that would lead into clarity, and you

·8· · just mentioned "clear."· And so, again, I think it depends

·9· · on what that is, whether it's sufficiently precise or, I

10· · think you said, absolutely precise or absolute precision.

11· · Q.· · · ·So in paragraph 26 you just say that, if a claim

12· · contains an element that is indefinite, then the claim is

13· · invalid.

14· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

15· · A.· · · ·Yes.

16· · Q.· · · ·You don't say anything about indefiniteness

17· · required to be proven by clear and convincing evidence in

18· · your legal standards.

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's just what I have in that

21· · paragraph 26.· Yes.

22· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

23· · Q.· · · ·Do you have anything about clear and convincing

24· · evidence in your report?

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 52 of 157 PageID #:

5392
·1· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Nothing that comes to mind.· No.

·2· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·3· · Q.· · · ·Can we turn to paragraph 43 of your report.

·4· · A.· · · ·Sure.

·5· · · · · · ·I'm with you.· It's at the bottom of page 15.

·6· · Q.· · · ·In paragraph 43, you provide a summary of the

·7· · prosecution history of the '541 patent, correct?

·8· · A.· · · ·In which paragraph?

·9· · Q.· · · ·Starting on paragraph 43, which is under the

10· · heading of prosecution history of the '541 patent.

11· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

12· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I see paragraph 43 there at the bottom of

13· · page 15.

14· · Q.· · · ·And so, in this subsection B, you're providing an

15· · overview or summary of the prosecution history of the '541

16· · patent?

17· · A.· · · ·Yes.

18· · Q.· · · ·Do you rely on the prosecution history of the '541

19· · patent in your claim construction opinions?

20· · A.· · · ·I certainly reviewed it and tried to learn as much

21· · as I could in addition to the patent to help me with my

22· · understanding of the claim terms.

23· · Q.· · · ·Does the prosecution history affect your opinions

24· · on the '541 patent?

25· · A.· · · ·Probably nothing beyond what I have in the

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 53 of 157 PageID #:

5393
·1· · paragraphs where I discuss the file histories for both of

·2· · these patents in my report.

·3· · Q.· · · ·So we are looking at that right now for the '541

·4· · patent, correct?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yes.· Starting on, I guess, paragraph 43 but more

·6· · substantively paragraph 44 on page 16.

·7· · Q.· · · ·So does what -- what you say here, does this

·8· · affect your claim construction opinions for the terms of

·9· · the '541 patent?

10· · A.· · · ·I don't know if "affect" is the right word.

11· · Certainly, reviewing the amendments, you know -- trying to

12· · do that and make a good faith effort to look at the whole

13· · file history and, of course, the patent itself to try to

14· · understand what the claim terms mean was just part of the

15· · work that I did.

16· · · · · · ·I list here, you know, one example of how the

17· · claim terms were amended.· And I guess there is some

18· · context you could learn by -- or try to learn by seeing

19· · what was changed, because maybe there is some key words

20· · that help explain, because they tried to improve it, or you

21· · would hope that's the goal.

22· · Q.· · · ·And so you do have here, you know, the -- how the

23· · claim language was amended.· But what is that telling

24· · you -- what information is that giving you that would be

25· · relevant?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 54 of 157 PageID #:

5394
·1· · A.· · · ·I guess the possibility of a little extra context

·2· · to try to get more understanding of what they might mean,

·3· · because this is just changes to the claim terms that may be

·4· · reflected in the written description of the patent that may

·5· · give a little more context.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Sure.· And I'm not asking generally, Dr. Turnbull.

·7· · I'm asking, looking at this specific amendment, can you

·8· · describe for me what -- I mean, what specific thing is

·9· · relevant or what you're taking from this that might be

10· · relevant to your opinions?

11· · A.· · · ·I don't know if this shows anything specifically

12· · that I built upon to form my opinions.

13· · Q.· · · ·And you don't discuss that, do you, in your

14· · report?

15· · A.· · · ·No.· Other than here.· No.

16· · Q.· · · ·You show the amendments, but you're not explaining

17· · A, B, C, what we are learning from these specific

18· · amendments.

19· · A.· · · ·That's right.

20· · Q.· · · ·Can we look at the next subsection, overview of

21· · the -- I'm sorry.

22· · · · · · ·Subsection D, prosecution history of the '613

23· · patent above paragraph 48.

24· · A.· · · ·Okay.· On page 17.· I'm with you.

25· · Q.· · · ·And here it's short, but in para 49, you provide

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 55 of 157 PageID #:

5395
·1· · an overview or summary of the '613 patent prosecution

·2· · history.· Do you see that?

·3· · A.· · · ·That's right.· Yes.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Do you rely on the prosecution history of the '613

·5· · patent for your claim construction opinions?

·6· · A.· · · ·It was part of the documentation that I reviewed.

·7· · I don't recall if it gave me any additional insights, but I

·8· · definitely reviewed it.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Can you identify any insights that would be

10· · relevant to your opinions either from the prosecution

11· · history or stated here about this '613 patent?

12· · A.· · · ·Sitting here right now, nothing comes to mind.

13· · Q.· · · ·You say that the applicant filed a preliminary

14· · amendment and additional -- and an additional

15· · nonsubstantive amendment following an Ex parte Quayle

16· · action.

17· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

18· · A.· · · ·I do.

19· · Q.· · · ·What is an Ex parte Quayle action?

20· · A.· · · ·I remember looking it up, but I've forgotten what

21· · it means by now.

22· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let's talk about the first term.· Can you

23· · go to paragraph 50 of your report.

24· · A.· · · ·I'm with you.· Page 18, paragraph 50.

25· · Q.· · · ·Excuse me.· My light turned off, so I had to turn

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 56 of 157 PageID #:

5396
·1· · it on.

·2· · · · · · ·So your opinion is about the term "one or more

·3· · prospective -- dot, dot, dot -- communications [over

·4· · wireless network]."· Correct?

·5· · A.· · · ·That's right.· That's what we're talking about

·6· · here.

·7· · Q.· · · ·And you're not offering any claim construction

·8· · opinions about any other terms?

·9· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

10· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, we have more in my report

12· · discussing some other claim terms, but here, this is what

13· · we're discussing, if that's what you're asking.

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·Do you have the claim language of claim 1 in your

16· · report?

17· · A.· · · ·I think I have this selected part of it, and it's

18· · possible it's up above, but maybe not.

19· · Q.· · · ·Do you have the claim language of the claims that

20· · you offer opinions on reproduced in your report?

21· · A.· · · ·I think that's what we see in -- I guess it's

22· · section A or header A we see a quote from the claim

23· · language itself.· So it's produced there.

24· · Q.· · · ·In what paragraph are you referring to?

25· · A.· · · ·I guess it's -- I know it's -- on page 18 it says

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 57 of 157 PageID #:

5397
·1· · A, section A.· So I don't know if that's called paragraph A

·2· · or not.· It's just a heading.· And you can see the claim

·3· · language is there in quotations.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Right.· And so this is the claim term, right?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · ·But the full claim language of claim 1, do you

·7· · have it?

·8· · A.· · · ·Oh, I don't think I inserted the whole -- the

·9· · whole claim here.· I was just inserting the relevant terms

10· · that I was discussing in this report.

11· · Q.· · · ·While we're on this, looking at the heading, do

12· · you see how you have brackets around over wireless network?

13· · A.· · · ·I do.

14· · Q.· · · ·How should we understand that?· What do you mean

15· · by the brackets?

16· · A.· · · ·We could look at the claim itself if you want to

17· · introduce the '541 as an exhibit.· I think it's

18· · representing the fact that that is in the claim language,

19· · and we may have the beginning part of the quote in there

20· · more than once.· So I think it's kind of a shorthand for

21· · referring to the claim term generally.

22· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Do you mean that it may appear twice, like

23· · one that has the full phrase -- dot, dot, dot --

24· · communications over wireless network, and then again -- and

25· · it just says communications?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 58 of 157 PageID #:

5398
·1· · A.· · · ·Maybe something like that.· I just don't recall.

·2· · If we pull it up, we can probably verify that if you're

·3· · curious.

·4· · Q.· · · ·If -- if the phrase is always -- and we'll confirm

·5· · that in the claim, but if it's always communications over a

·6· · wireless network, would it be appropriate to look at that

·7· · term?

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· If the word "always" is in there?

10· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

11· · Q.· · · ·No, no, no.· If it -- if it always says

12· · communications over wireless network.· Are you proposing to

13· · construe it with or without the last part?

14· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess just what I have here.· I've

16· · included it, so that's what I'm discussing here.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·So what do you mean by the brackets?

19· · A.· · · ·I thought I answered that already.· I'm not sure

20· · what else you're asking.

21· · Q.· · · ·Does the brackets mean that it can be omitted?

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it's there to -- because

24· · it's in the claim terms and it's modifying the

25· · communications, it gives an understanding of

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 59 of 157 PageID #:

5399
·1· · communications.· So that's why it's there.

·2· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Let's -- let's -- I'm going to

·3· · introduce two exhibits, Exhibits 3 and 4, and they will be

·4· · the '541 and the '613 patents.· So I'll go ahead and send

·5· · them via the Zoom.

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.

·7· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 3 was presented and subsequently marked

·8· · · · · · ·for identification.)

·9· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 4 was presented and subsequently marked

10· · · · · · ·for identification.)

11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· I've got Exhibit 3 and 4. 3

12· · is, I guess, what we'll call '541 patent.· And looks like

13· · it's the full PDF of that.· 100 pages.

14· · · · · · ·And then I also downloaded Exhibit 4, which I

15· · guess we'll call the '613 patent.· And it looks like that's

16· · the entire PDF that is 94 pages by my count.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·Thank you, Dr. Turnbull.· So I will just repeat

19· · what you said, which is I'm introducing as Exhibit 3 to

20· · Dr. Turnbull's deposition a PDF that's entitled U.S. Patent

21· · Number 8,589,541, and the document is 100 pages.· And, in

22· · short, we'll refer to this as the '541 patent.

23· · · · · · ·Dr. Turnbull, does this document, Exhibit 3,

24· · appear to be a true and correct copy of the '541 patent

25· · that you discuss in your report?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 60 of 157 PageID #:

5400
·1· · A.· · · ·It does.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And then, if you could open Exhibit 4, I will

·3· · introduce as Exhibit 4 a patent, U.S. Patent

·4· · Number 9,215,613.· It is a PDF document of 94 pages.· We

·5· · will refer to it, in short, as the '613 patent.

·6· · · · · · ·Dr. Turnbull, does this Exhibit 4 appear to be a

·7· · true and correct copy of the '613 patent that you discuss

·8· · in your report?

·9· · A.· · · ·It does.

10· · Q.· · · ·So let's open Exhibit 3.· And if you could turn to

11· · claim 1 of Exhibit 3 of the '541 patent.

12· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I'm there.· Looks like it's column 110.

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I want to turn your attention to the middle

14· · of the claim, around -- starting on line 21.· It says

15· · (as read):

16· · · · · · · · ·The service usage activity comprising one or

17· · · · · · ·more prospective or successful communications over

18· · · · · · ·a wireless network.

19· · · · · · ·Right?

20· · A.· · · ·Yes.

21· · Q.· · · ·And the term that you've identified for

22· · construction in your report is -- is part of that phrase I

23· · just read, right?

24· · A.· · · ·That's right.

25· · Q.· · · ·So first let me ask you.· The term that you are

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 61 of 157 PageID #:

5401
·1· · proposing for construction is one or more prospective --

·2· · dot, dot, dot -- communications over a wireless network.

·3· · · · · · ·Right?

·4· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·5· · Q.· · · ·And so the other words of the claim -- do you see

·6· · it begins with, the service usage activity?· Or, the

·7· · service usage activity comprising?

·8· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·9· · A.· · · ·I do.

10· · Q.· · · ·That's not part of your term for construction,

11· · right?

12· · A.· · · ·No.

13· · Q.· · · ·And so you don't opine that -- you aren't offering

14· · any opinions about the meaning of that term?

15· · A.· · · ·No.

16· · Q.· · · ·You don't offer any opinions that that term is

17· · indefinite?

18· · A.· · · ·No opinion either way.

19· · Q.· · · ·And then do you see part of the claim language

20· · that says, successful communications over a wireless

21· · network?

22· · A.· · · ·Yes.

23· · Q.· · · ·I guess it can be plural or not.· Successful

24· · communication or communications over a wireless network.

25· · Do you -- do you see that?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 62 of 157 PageID #:

5402
·1· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· It looks like it's plural.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And that part, successful communications over a

·3· · wireless network, you don't have an opinion that that's

·4· · indefinite, right?

·5· · A.· · · ·Could you ask the question again, please?

·6· · Q.· · · ·Sure.

·7· · · · · · ·Let me try it again.

·8· · · · · · ·So the part of this claim phrase that says, one or

·9· · more successful communications over a wireless network or

10· · just successful communications over a wireless network --

11· · are you with me?

12· · A.· · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · ·That's not the term that you're proposing for

14· · construction.

15· · A.· · · ·That's right.

16· · Q.· · · ·And you don't offer any opinion that that phrase

17· · is indefinite?

18· · A.· · · ·No.

19· · Q.· · · ·That phrase being successful communications over a

20· · wireless network.

21· · A.· · · ·That's right.

22· · Q.· · · ·In fact, returning to your declaration, your

23· · opinion is that the scope of a, quote, successful

24· · communication is sufficiently clear, correct?

25· · A.· · · ·Yes.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 63 of 157 PageID #:

5403
·1· · Q.· · · ·And let's go back to your declaration and look at

·2· · paragraph 53.

·3· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I think that's where we were anyway.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

·5· · · · · · ·And you say that the scope of a successful

·6· · communication over wireless network is sufficiently clear

·7· · to you.

·8· · A.· · · ·Yes.· That's what I've got there in paragraph 53.

·9· · Q.· · · ·And you're making this statement like in the

10· · context of the claims and specification of the '541 patent,

11· · right?

12· · A.· · · ·Yes.

13· · Q.· · · ·And you say that it means a communication that

14· · successfully travels over a wireless network to its

15· · intended destination?

16· · A.· · · ·That's right.

17· · Q.· · · ·And then you say, i.e., a successful communication

18· · over a wireless network.

19· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · A.· · · ·That's right.

21· · Q.· · · ·And so what does "i.e." mean?

22· · A.· · · ·"In other words."

23· · Q.· · · ·Or it means "that is," right?

24· · A.· · · ·Yeah.

25· · Q.· · · ·So here,· you're pretty much saying that, you

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 64 of 157 PageID #:

5404
·1· · know -- the longer phrased -- that is what a successful

·2· · communication over a wireless network is, right?

·3· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Have you heard of the word "prospective" before?

·5· · A.· · · ·Sure.

·6· · Q.· · · ·What does "prospective" mean?

·7· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess it refers to something that

·9· · is eligible.· "Potential" maybe is more accurate.· Just

10· · generally ideas like that.

11· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

12· · Q.· · · ·And that's the meaning in English usage?

13· · A.· · · ·I don't know if that's the dictionary definition,

14· · but you just asking me, that comes to mind.

15· · Q.· · · ·And the words that you gave were "eligible" or

16· · "potential," right?

17· · A.· · · ·Yes.

18· · Q.· · · ·And you said that maybe "potential" is more

19· · accurate?

20· · A.· · · ·Yes.

21· · Q.· · · ·Are you married, Dr. Turnbull?

22· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure how to answer that question.

23· · Q.· · · ·I didn't mean to be appropriate.

24· · · · · · ·But if -- I mean, would it make sense to think of

25· · someone as a prospective partner or a prospective spouse?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 65 of 157 PageID #:

5405
·1· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess that would be one type of

·3· · prospective something.· Yes.

·4· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·5· · Q.· · · ·And that might fit the meaning of "eligible" or

·6· · "potential"?

·7· · A.· · · ·Oh, I see.· "Eligible" maybe cued you in to that

·8· · line of thought.

·9· · · · · · ·Yeah.· I think that's true.· I think, you know,

10· · relationships between two people maybe is a little

11· · different than, you know, for technical things, but I think

12· · we're in the same ballpark with ideas like that.

13· · Q.· · · ·I want to turn your attention to -- okay.· In

14· · the '541 patent -- and we can -- we can look at the claim

15· · language.· It talks about service usage activities, right?

16· · A.· · · ·That's right.· We discussed that a little bit a

17· · few minutes ago.

18· · Q.· · · ·And it says that the service usage activity can

19· · comprise one or more communications.

20· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

21· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

22· · Q.· · · ·Right?

23· · A.· · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · ·So I want to ask you about paragraph 58 of your

25· · report.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 66 of 157 PageID #:

5406
·1· · A.· · · ·Okay.

·2· · Q.· · · ·In paragraph 58, again, you say, the '541 patent

·3· · includes extensive disclosures regarding how particular

·4· · service usage activities may be initiated.

·5· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · A.· · · ·I do.· We're following that paragraph onto the

·7· · next page, page 21 of my report.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

·9· · · · · · ·And I just want to focus on this first part

10· · (as read):

11· · · · · · · · ·The '51- -- '541 patent includes extensive

12· · · · · · ·disclosures regarding how particular service usage

13· · · · · · ·activities may be initiated.

14· · · · · · ·You see that?

15· · A.· · · ·I do.

16· · Q.· · · ·And does this also refer to service usage

17· · activities that comprise one or more communications?

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's certainly referring to

20· · communications, types of communications.

21· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

22· · Q.· · · ·And so, when you say "may be initiated," you are

23· · referring to communications or one or more communications.

24· · That would fit into what you're describing?

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 67 of 157 PageID #:

5407
·1· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess the communications would be

·2· · part of a service usage activities as we see in some of the

·3· · examples that I cite here in the patent.

·4· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·5· · Q.· · · ·And when you're -- and when you're talking about

·6· · may be initiated, that would apply to communication -- a

·7· · communication may be initiated?

·8· · A.· · · ·The activities of which a communication may be

·9· · part of the activity, yes.

10· · Q.· · · ·Does it make sense to talk about a communication

11· · being initiated?

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Generally or related to something

14· · specifically?

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·I mean communication in the context of the patent

17· · in the context of this sentence.

18· · A.· · · ·I guess, to some extent, we have, you know, a

19· · service usage activity that could have one or more types of

20· · communications and, again, over a wireless network, as

21· · we've been discussing.

22· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let's talk about when a communication is

23· · initiated.· At that point, the communication is not a

24· · successful communication, right?

25· · A.· · · ·No.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 68 of 157 PageID #:

5408
·1· · Q.· · · ·And that's because, if you read the rest of your

·2· · sentence, the communication's subsequently blocked,

·3· · throttled, or otherwise not permitted to be -- to occur,

·4· · right?

·5· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So in this sentence beginning with,

·7· · the '541 patent includes extensive disclosures, you're not

·8· · referring to successful communications over a wireless

·9· · network.

10· · A.· · · ·Yes.· That's right.

11· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And so -- then I want to -- returning back

12· · to this sentence, and then we're talking about

13· · communications, and then we talk about communications that

14· · may be initiated.

15· · · · · · ·Are you with me so far?

16· · A.· · · ·I think so.· I think that's what we were talking

17· · about.

18· · Q.· · · ·Let's discuss this situation after a communication

19· · is initiated.· Would that be a prospective communication

20· · over a wireless network?

21· · A.· · · ·I don't know.· That's not what it says throughout

22· · the patent.· I think, if they wanted to say prospective,

23· · that's what they would have said.· But that's not what they

24· · say.

25· · Q.· · · ·But I'm asking you for your -- for your

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 69 of 157 PageID #:

5409
·1· · understanding.· So we're talking about a communication in

·2· · this sentence.· We're talking about right after it's

·3· · initiated.· And we're stopping there.

·4· · · · · · ·Would that be a prospective communication over a

·5· · wireless network?

·6· · A.· · · ·We can't tell, and, again, that's why we have this

·7· · whole discussion.· It's just not described precisely

·8· · anywhere in the patent.· They just don't give you that

·9· · definition of what "prospective" means, and that's why it's

10· · indefinite.

11· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Well, I'm asking you as a person of

12· · skill -- skill in the art.· Why wouldn't it be considered a

13· · prospective communication over a wireless network?

14· · A.· · · ·Why wouldn't "it"?

15· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· The communication after it's initiated.

16· · A.· · · ·Because there can be more than one type of

17· · communication or class of communication, and all we see in

18· · your example or all we hear in your example is this

19· · communicated that's -- communication that's initiated.

20· · There's no definition, other than by some examples, what

21· · that means.

22· · · · · · ·And my understanding of computer science and how

23· · communication protocols work -- a prospective communication

24· · could be something different than an initiated

25· · communication.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 70 of 157 PageID #:

5410
·1· · · · · · ·And that's why, if they had stated that correctly

·2· · or defined that somewhere in all 99 pages of the patent, we

·3· · probably wouldn't be having this discussion.· It's just --

·4· · it's not definite what the terms mean.· I am not going to

·5· · say that it's interchangeable with "initiated."

·6· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So we -- we already talked about -- and you

·7· · have no problem understanding that it's not a successful

·8· · communication over a wireless network, right?

·9· · A.· · · ·At least at that phase as we hope to understand

10· · it.

11· · Q.· · · ·So we agree on that.· So why would it not be

12· · considered by a --

13· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·Why would it not be considered by a POSITA to be a

16· · prospective communication over a wireless network?

17· · A.· · · ·Are you asking why an initiated --

18· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

19· · A.· · · ·-- communication as they define it would not be

20· · the same thing as a prospective communication?

21· · Q.· · · ·No, no.· What -- okay.

22· · · · · · ·Returning to your opinion in paragraph 58.

23· · A.· · · ·Uh-huh.

24· · Q.· · · ·And we're discussing a communication that is

25· · initiated.· At that point, why would the communication --

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 71 of 157 PageID #:

5411
·1· · why couldn't the communication be considered a prospective

·2· · communication over a wireless network?

·3· · A.· · · ·Why couldn't it be considered?

·4· · Q.· · · ·Yeah, yeah.· Why not?

·5· · A.· · · ·It's possible, but there could be other types of

·6· · prospective communications as well.· So it's not a

·7· · one-to-one match.· Again, we just don't have enough clarity

·8· · in the patent to define what prospective means because

·9· · it's -- it's not used.

10· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So you agree with me that a POSITA could

11· · consider a communication when it's initiated to be a

12· · prospective communication over a wireless network?

13· · A.· · · ·There could be many, many types of possibilities

14· · that the communication -- of communication types.· Again,

15· · we don't see in the patent them defining what prospective

16· · is, so it's indefinite.· And I guess it's possible that a

17· · person of skill might think it could be, but it's not

18· · taught in the patent.· There's no clarity about what that

19· · means.· If someone is struggling and saying this is a

20· · communication, maybe it's that, but also maybe it's not.

21· · Maybe sometimes it is; maybe sometimes it's not.· There's

22· · just no clarity in the written description to let us

23· · understand that.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I want you to focus on my question,

25· · Dr. Turnbull.· So I'm focusing on this hypothetical of a

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 72 of 157 PageID #:

5412
·1· · communication that's initiated.

·2· · · · · · ·And my question to you was that -- could a POSITA

·3· · consider this a prospective communication over a wireless

·4· · network.· And I believe your answer was that a POSITA

·5· · could -- could consider it that, right?

·6· · · · · · ·I'm not asking about anything else.· I want you to

·7· · stick to my question.· My first question is, could a POSITA

·8· · consider that to be a prospective communication over a

·9· · wireless network?

10· · A.· · · ·I think we just don't know because it's just not

11· · defined well enough.

12· · Q.· · · ·I mean, earlier I asked you.· Your response was:

13· · I guess it's possible that a person of skill might think it

14· · could be what I said.

15· · · · · · ·Do you stand by that?

16· · A.· · · ·It's also just as impossible.· It's just one of

17· · the things when you have something that's not defined that

18· · you're kind of guessing what it might be.

19· · Q.· · · ·So I do understand your testimony that maybe it

20· · could be considered other things, right, but I'm focusing

21· · on what I'm -- the hypothetical I'm presenting, right,

22· · which is the communication is initiated.· At that point,

23· · could a POSITA consider that a prospective communication

24· · over a wireless network?

25· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I just don't know if they could or not.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 73 of 157 PageID #:

5413
·1· · Even the fact that you mentioned as a hypothetical, it just

·2· · depends on what the technical architecture might or might

·3· · not be, what -- how the system works.· There are just too

·4· · many unknowns there.· It literally is indefinite.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Can you tell me -- can you then -- can you

·6· · explain to me why a person would not consider it a

·7· · prospective communication over a wireless network?

·8· · A.· · · ·Oh, gosh.· I think that's like proving a negative.

·9· · Maybe I can answer it this way.· And if it's not right, you

10· · can ask that again.· You know, when you're building

11· · software, you have to be precise.· And when you're

12· · describing an invention that should be what a patent is

13· · about, you need to describe that and then, I guess, prove

14· · it's novel, that it's patentable.

15· · · · · · ·And in order to do that, you have to be precise in

16· · describing that, especially with software, where I could

17· · have 10,000 lines of code.· And one thing is wrong; it

18· · won't work.· So precision is required.

19· · · · · · ·It's required in describing what you're telling

20· · someone how to build.· You're teaching in the patent.· And

21· · in this case, it's not specified.· It's not described in

22· · the written description.· The variety of hypothetical or

23· · technical ways that, you know, have variations as well are

24· · so wide that you just aren't taught that in this.· There

25· · are just no definition for what that term means in the

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 74 of 157 PageID #:

5414
·1· · patent.· So a person of skill might try to guess, but it

·2· · would be just that, because it's not defined.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So that -- that was kind of a general

·4· · answer.· But I want to know if you can give me some

·5· · specifics.· If we're two persons of ordinary skill, right,

·6· · and one said, yes, after it's initiated, I think it would

·7· · be or could be considered a communication -- a prospective

·8· · communication over a wireless network.

·9· · · · · · ·If the other person of skill disagreed and said,

10· · no, it could not be, it would not be considered that, what

11· · would be the technical reasons why it would not be

12· · considered that?· Can you give me specific technical

13· · reasons?

14· · A.· · · ·I guess, before I have a technical reason, I would

15· · say that your person 1 actually used the term and tried to

16· · define it.· They said this initiated one could be

17· · prospective.· And then you could argue about that and say

18· · what do you mean and what are the parameters.· But that's

19· · already what person 1 did, more than we have in the patent.

20· · · · · · ·So if that existed in the patent, we probably

21· · wouldn't be having this discussion.· So the hypothetical of

22· · a person 1 literally trying to define it, that's great.

23· · Then that's kind of a different discussion than us trying

24· · to make sense of what "prospective" means because it's not

25· · mentioned in the patent.· I don't know if you follow me

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 75 of 157 PageID #:

5415
·1· · there, but that's my thought there.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Right.

·3· · · · · · ·Dr. Turnbull, I don't know if this is an attempt

·4· · to define it.· We're looking at your opinions in your

·5· · report, right?· And you're talking about -- you know,

·6· · you're talking about how communication may be initiated,

·7· · right?· So we're going along with -- and we're looking at

·8· · it then.· And so I'm -- and that was how my question

·9· · started.· We're looking at the communication then.

10· · · · · · ·After it's initiated -- right after it's

11· · initiated, and that's what our POSITA or two POSITAs are

12· · looking at.· And so what I'm proposing is that a POSITA

13· · would consider that a prospective communication over a

14· · wireless network.

15· · · · · · ·Can you explain to me why -- specific technical

16· · reasons why that would not be the case to a POSITA.

17· · A.· · · ·I really can't because we just don't have enough

18· · of the technical architecture to discuss.· That's just --

19· · that is like a hypothetical -- of a hypothetical universe

20· · of technical things.· Probably simply -- and maybe I said

21· · this before, but it's my way of thinking about it.· And

22· · that's what I say in my report.· Is that, if something were

23· · to be described as maybe initiated, that's what it's

24· · described as.· And if it were described as prospective, I

25· · would understand that that's something different if that

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 76 of 157 PageID #:

5416
·1· · was explained.

·2· · · · · · ·So I can't map initiated to prospective because

·3· · systems are just more complicated than that.· Hypothetical

·4· · and real.· You could have things that are prospective but

·5· · not even initiated yet.· There's just the -- the breadth of

·6· · that is just simply too -- too broad, and it's just not

·7· · defined in the patent, and that really is a problem in, you

·8· · know, the claim term and the written description.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Can we look at the rest of your sentence in

10· · paragraph 58.· You say (as read):

11· · · · · · · · ·May be initiated but are subsequently blocked,

12· · · · · · ·throttled, or otherwise not permitted to occur.

13· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

14· · A.· · · ·I do.

15· · Q.· · · ·Those things could happen as a result of applying

16· · a network control policy, correct?

17· · A.· · · ·I guess at least that.· There may be other things

18· · the patent describes related to, say, blocking, if I

19· · remember.

20· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Hey, Philip, we've been going

21· · about an hour, so whenever you get a stopping point would

22· · be good.

23· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Sure.· I'll try to wrap up shortly

24· · on this line of questioning.

25· · /////

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 77 of 157 PageID #:

5417
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·So you agree that blocked, throttled, or otherwise

·3· · not permitted to occur can be the result of applying a

·4· · network control policy?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know if that's the exact

·7· · phrase in the patent, but I think generally that would be

·8· · the types of things that we might see that could happen

·9· · over a network when there's some control over it.

10· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

11· · Q.· · · ·And what about what's described in the claim about

12· · applying a policy?

13· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· That's what I thought you were referring

14· · to.

15· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Okay.· All right.· So we were talking about

16· · that in the claim of policy.

17· · · · · · ·Okay.· Let's go off the record.

18· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Yes.

20· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· All right.· The time is

21· · now 11:14 a.m.· We're going off the video record.

22· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

23· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 11:25 a.m., and

24· · we are back on the video record.

25· · /////

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 78 of 157 PageID #:

5418
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·Welcome back, Dr. Turnbull.

·3· · A.· · · ·Thank you.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Did you speak to your counsel during our break?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· You can answer that question

·6· · yes or no.

·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.

·8· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·9· · Q.· · · ·Did you discuss the substance of your testimony

10· · with counsel during our break?

11· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· I'm instructing the witness not

12· · to answer.

13· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

14· · Q.· · · ·Will you follow that instruction?

15· · A.· · · ·I will.

16· · Q.· · · ·Dr. Turnbull, let's turn to paragraph 61 of your

17· · report.

18· · A.· · · ·Okay.· On page 21.

19· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

20· · · · · · ·So at the very, very end of it, you say (as read):

21· · · · · · · · ·As I discuss above, this is the fundamental

22· · · · · · ·purpose of the invention described in the '541

23· · · · · · ·patent, namely, to --

24· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

25· · /////

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 79 of 157 PageID #:

5419
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·Sure.· Let me start again.

·3· · · · · · ·In paragraph 61 of your report, Doctor, at the end

·4· · of that paragraph, you say, quote (as read):

·5· · · · · · · · ·As I discuss above, this is the fundamental

·6· · · · · · ·purpose of the invention described in the '541

·7· · · · · · ·patent, namely, to prevent certain background

·8· · · · · · ·activity from accessing a wireless network in

·9· · · · · · ·certain instances, end quote.

10· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

11· · A.· · · ·I do.

12· · Q.· · · ·And do you agree with that?

13· · A.· · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·And the way that certain background activity is

15· · prevented from accessing a wireless network is by applying

16· · a network control policy, correct?

17· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess, generally, yes.

19· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

20· · Q.· · · ·And that's the -- network control policy is the

21· · claimed term policy in claim 1 of the '541 patent?

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.

24· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

25· · Q.· · · ·So claim 1 of the '541 patent describes

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 80 of 157 PageID #:

5420
·1· · communications -- sorry.· Strike that.

·2· · · · · · ·Claim 1 in the '541 patent describes applying

·3· · policies to communications.

·4· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Was that a question?

·6· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·7· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

·8· · A.· · · ·Oh.· I'm sorry.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· Do you agree that claim 1 in the '541 patent

10· · describes applying policies to communications?

11· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· To communications over wireless

13· · network, yes, because that's what it says there.

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let me just rephrase again to get your --

16· · to get your answer correct.

17· · A.· · · ·Okay.

18· · Q.· · · ·Do you agree that claim 1 of the '541 patent

19· · describes applying policies to communications over a

20· · wireless network?

21· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Mostly, yes.

23· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

24· · Q.· · · ·And then, at the top of paragraph 61, do you see

25· · in the first sentence you have three terms that are in

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 81 of 157 PageID #:

5421
·1· · quotes:· communication, prospective communication, and a

·2· · successful communication?

·3· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·4· · A.· · · ·I do.

·5· · Q.· · · ·And as we discussed before, your indefiniteness

·6· · opinion is about the middle term, right, prospective

·7· · communication?

·8· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·9· · Q.· · · ·You don't have an opinion that the term

10· · "communication" by itself is indefinite, the first term?

11· · A.· · · ·No.

12· · Q.· · · ·And you don't have the opinion that the third

13· · quoted term, "successful communication," is indefinite?

14· · A.· · · ·No.

15· · Q.· · · ·Can you turn to paragraph 62 of your report.

16· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I'm with you.· We're on page 22 now.

17· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

18· · · · · · ·Okay.· So in the middle of this paragraph you talk

19· · about like the illogical result of the, quote (as read):

20· · · · · · · · ·Successful communication over a wireless

21· · · · · · ·network from being blocked from leaving the device

22· · · · · · ·at all.

23· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

24· · A.· · · ·Yes.

25· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Does the --

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 82 of 157 PageID #:

5422
·1· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

·2· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·3· · Q.· · · ·Does claim 1 of the '541 patent require this?

·4· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think, like I say here, the claim

·6· · describes a situation where you have the successful

·7· · communication over a wireless network, and the problem

·8· · therein with that, as I described in all with paragraph 62

·9· · here, it's counterintuitive or just incorrect or vague.

10· · · · · · ·(Disruption in the Zoom connection.)

11· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Yes.· Let's go off the record.

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Sure.

14· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 11:32 a.m.,

15· · and we're going off the video record.

16· · · · · · ·(Discussion held off the record.)

17· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· All right.

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Welcome back, Dr. Turnbull.

19· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 11:35 a.m.

20· · We're back on the video record.

21· · · · · · ·Sorry.

22· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

23· · Q.· · · ·Welcome back, Dr. Turnbull.

24· · A.· · · ·Thank you.

25· · Q.· · · ·We had some technical difficulties, and so at the

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 83 of 157 PageID #:

5423
·1· · risk of being redundant, I may replow some of the ground we

·2· · just covered.

·3· · · · · · ·So we were talking about your opinion in

·4· · paragraph 62 where you discuss the illogical result of the

·5· · successful communication over a wireless network from being

·6· · blocked from leaving the device at all.

·7· · · · · · ·Do you recall that?

·8· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·9· · Q.· · · ·And then my question was, does claim 1 of the '541

10· · patent require this.· And so I'll ask that question again

11· · and allow you to respond.

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Does claim 1 require that it be

14· · blocked?· I'm not sure of the question now.

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· Does claim 1 require the situation where a

17· · successful communication over a wireless network is blocked

18· · from leaving the device at all?

19· · A.· · · ·It has the policy that it mentions, and in the

20· · embodiments, there are examples where the policy could be

21· · blocking the communication from leaving the device.· And I

22· · think that's kind of what I have here.· Still not sure if

23· · that's the question you asked.

24· · Q.· · · ·Does applying a policy to communication require

25· · the communication to be blocked from leaving the device at

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 84 of 157 PageID #:

5424
·1· · all?

·2· · A.· · · ·It can be one aspect, or, again, from the patent,

·3· · one of the embodiments could include blocking the network

·4· · communication.

·5· · Q.· · · ·But does it require it?

·6· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Just in the sense that it's one of

·8· · the potential things that the policy that is described in

·9· · claim 1 could be applied to a communication.

10· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

11· · Q.· · · ·Right.

12· · · · · · ·But -- and when we're talking about the word

13· · "policy," it's just a policy, right?· The policy could lead

14· · to different results -- I mean, that's part of the

15· · definition of policy, right?

16· · A.· · · ·I would think the policy would -- I don't know. I

17· · feel like "lead to" is not the right phrase.· That's why

18· · I'm trying to improve upon that for us.

19· · · · · · ·The policy, I guess, could enforce or -- no.

20· · That's not right either.

21· · · · · · ·I'm not -- I'm not sure of the right word.

22· · Q.· · · ·Sure.· But there is a distinction.· You could

23· · apply a policy to a communication, for example, but

24· · depending on what the policy is or the circumstances of the

25· · device, it could result in a communication being blocked or

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 85 of 157 PageID #:

5425
·1· · not.

·2· · · · · · ·Do you agree with that as a general matter?

·3· · A.· · · ·It could result in -- from the examples we have in

·4· · the Petnik [phonetic] result in the policy being blocked or

·5· · something else about the communication.

·6· · Q.· · · ·And could it result in the communication being

·7· · allowed?

·8· · A.· · · ·Huh.· I guess that's what we're discussing here,

·9· · is that, if it's allowed, it's already happened.· So the

10· · policy isn't relevant.· So that's maybe not a good word

11· · either, or that's just not how the policy step is.

12· · Q.· · · ·You could still think about the policy as being

13· · applied.· It's just that the -- under the policy, the

14· · communication was allowed?

15· · A.· · · ·Maybe this will help.· You can tell me.· If the

16· · policy doesn't block it, the communication might be

17· · allowed.· I think we might be saying the same thing.· I'm

18· · just trying to be more specific.

19· · Q.· · · ·And that would be a successful communication over

20· · a wireless network?

21· · A.· · · ·It could be.· We just don't know.

22· · Q.· · · ·Can we turn to section B of your report.· It's on

23· · page 22.

24· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I'm with you.· It's the same page.

25· · Q.· · · ·So we talked about this before.· But in this

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 86 of 157 PageID #:

5426
·1· · heading, you have kind of three terms that are all put

·2· · together in the heading.

·3· · A.· · · ·Uh-huh.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Right?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So the first term is from claim 1 in the

·7· · '541 patent, the second term is from claim 1 of the '613

·8· · patent, and the third term is from claim 6 of the '613

·9· · patent.

10· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

11· · A.· · · ·That's right.

12· · Q.· · · ·Why are you grouping these three terms together

13· · into one heading?

14· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Because they're related to

16· · background activity.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·So you're putting them together because you

19· · believe that they're all related to the term background

20· · activity?

21· · A.· · · ·That's right.

22· · Q.· · · ·I understand your opinion that each of these three

23· · terms is indefinite, correct?

24· · A.· · · ·That's right.

25· · Q.· · · ·Do your opinions for these terms depend on one

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 87 of 157 PageID #:

5427
·1· · another?

·2· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Maybe ask that again.· I think I

·4· · missed the second word in your question.

·5· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·6· · Q.· · · ·Do your opinions for these terms depend on one

·7· · another?

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't think so.· I think they

10· · depend on the entire body of the patent to give an

11· · understanding of what these claim terms mean.· Again,

12· · they're here in one section because they're all related,

13· · again, maybe focused more around the idea of background

14· · activity as a claim term than other things.

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So your opinions for each of these three

17· · terms are independent from one another?

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think they're related just because

20· · they're all terms from the same written description.· So

21· · there's some dependency there.

22· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

23· · Q.· · · ·So if one of these terms were found not to be

24· · indefinite, would that affect your opinions for the other

25· · terms?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 88 of 157 PageID #:

5428
·1· · A.· · · ·No.· I would think about them individually because

·2· · they are different sets of terms, again, related to the

·3· · same general idea.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So putting them together in the same

·5· · section, you understand that you have to -- that your

·6· · opinions are separate for each of these terms?

·7· · A.· · · ·They're related.· That's why I put them together

·8· · here.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

10· · · · · · ·Can we look at paragraph 66 of your report?

11· · A.· · · ·I'm on that page.· Page 23 right now.· So I'm with

12· · you.

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· You seem to be discussing, you know, each

14· · of these terms and making some opinions.· And so you begin

15· · with -- you say that there's no disclosure to reasonably

16· · establish what constitutes the, quote (as read):

17· · · · · · · · ·Foreground or the, quote, background.

18· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

19· · A.· · · ·That's right.· And that's what I continue to do in

20· · the following paragraphs.

21· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Are you making that opinion regarding the

22· · first term background activity, in claim 1 of the '541

23· · patent?

24· · A.· · · ·That's right.· And the other claim terms as well.

25· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Did the term -- the first term that we're

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 89 of 157 PageID #:

5429
·1· · talking about is background activity, correct?

·2· · A.· · · ·We could talk about that first.· Sure.

·3· · Q.· · · ·But that is the first term, quote, background

·4· · activity, correct?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· In that heading, level B, that's right.

·6· · Q.· · · ·The term does not just say background, right?

·7· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·We can look at claim 1, which is Exhibit 3 of

·9· · the '541 patent.

10· · A.· · · ·Okay.

11· · Q.· · · ·Do you see that the term "background activity"

12· · appears three times in claim 1?

13· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· It looks like three times in claim 1.

14· · Q.· · · ·And the word "background" is always followed by

15· · activity, right?

16· · A.· · · ·Yes.· All three times.

17· · Q.· · · ·It never just says background?

18· · A.· · · ·No.

19· · Q.· · · ·Is the term "background activity" a technical term

20· · of art?

21· · A.· · · ·Not really.· It's pretty vague.

22· · Q.· · · ·Have you heard the term before?

23· · A.· · · ·I don't recall if I have.

24· · Q.· · · ·Do you offer any opinion that it's not a technical

25· · term of art?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 90 of 157 PageID #:

5430
·1· · A.· · · ·No.· Other than my discussion in trying to make

·2· · sense of it in the claim, in the patent itself.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Do you offer any opinion that it would be a term

·4· · unknown to persons of skill in the art?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that's what this whole

·7· · section is about, in fact.

·8· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·9· · Q.· · · ·Maybe you can point me to what you're talking

10· · about.· But my question is, do you offer the opinion that a

11· · person of skill in the art would not know what, quote,

12· · background activity means?

13· · A.· · · ·Again, I think that's what this whole section is

14· · about.· I think we were just talking about paragraph 66.

15· · And as you can see, I say in paragraph 66, the second

16· · sentence (as read):

17· · · · · · · · ·As I discuss below, each of these terms is

18· · · · · · ·ambiguous and fails to inform a POSITA -- or

19· · · · · · ·POSITA -- as to the scope of the claims in these

20· · · · · · ·patents -- those patents, because there is no

21· · · · · · ·disclosure to reasonably establish what

22· · · · · · ·constitutes the foreground or the background.

23· · Q.· · · ·I mean, I do see that you have some statements

24· · about foreground or background, but my question was

25· · specific to the term "background activity."

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 91 of 157 PageID #:

5431
·1· · · · · · ·Do you offer the opinion that that term would be

·2· · unfamiliar to persons of skill in the art, and if so, can

·3· · you point me to that?

·4· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it goes without saying that

·6· · it's something that a person wouldn't know, because I'm

·7· · trying to at least establish an understanding of not even

·8· · just what activity means, which is also vague, but I'm

·9· · trying to help define it in the context of background

10· · activity in this case.· And I'm contrasting that type of

11· · activity, a background activity, in trying to understand it

12· · in contrast to the foreground activity of which that seems

13· · to be the only two types of activities that are referred

14· · to.

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·But you say that the specification -- in

17· · paragraph 72, you say that the specification provides some

18· · differentiation between background activities and other

19· · activities, right?

20· · A.· · · ·That's right.

21· · Q.· · · ·And then that paragraph has some citations to

22· · the '541 patent, correct?

23· · A.· · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · ·And, yeah, you cite to column 23, to column 32,

25· · and column 18.· Do you see that?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 92 of 157 PageID #:

5432
·1· · A.· · · ·I see all three of those.· Yes.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And then, in the next paragraph, in 73, you say

·3· · (as read):

·4· · · · · · · · ·However, the specification provides

·5· · · · · · ·essentially no explanation as to what constitutes

·6· · · · · · ·a, quote, foreground activity.

·7· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · A.· · · ·Yes.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Foreground activity is not a claim term of claim 1

10· · of the '541 patent, right?

11· · A.· · · ·No.

12· · Q.· · · ·Is it a claim term in any of the claims that

13· · you've been opining on?

14· · A.· · · ·No.

15· · Q.· · · ·In paragraph 73, in the first sentence, why do you

16· · have quotes over foreground, the word "foreground" alone?

17· · A.· · · ·To call attention to it, and also it is a word

18· · that's in the patent.

19· · Q.· · · ·Is the word "foreground" in claim 1 of the '541

20· · patent?

21· · A.· · · ·I think you already asked me that, and we agreed

22· · that it's not.

23· · Q.· · · ·I think I asked you about foreground activity.

24· · And you agreed that it was not.· And so my second question

25· · was just the word "foreground."

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 93 of 157 PageID #:

5433
·1· · A.· · · ·I don't see it in claim 1.· No.

·2· · Q.· · · ·And then, at the first sentence of paragraph 72,

·3· · you do the same thing, right?· You put quotes over --

·4· · around the word background, when you say background

·5· · activities.· What -- why are you putting quotes around

·6· · background?

·7· · A.· · · ·To call attention to it, and in this case, it's

·8· · also both in the patent and also in the claim.

·9· · Q.· · · ·But the claim term is background activity, right?

10· · A.· · · ·Sure.

11· · Q.· · · ·So why would you just put quotes around the word

12· · background and not the whole phrase?

13· · A.· · · ·Because I'm talking about plural.· So I'm not -- I

14· · wouldn't want to put, quote, background activities, plural.

15· · So I'm just calling out them, talking about background as a

16· · word.

17· · Q.· · · ·All right.· And this may not be what you're

18· · referring to, but it reminded me of it.· But if we come

19· · across some what you testified earlier this morning,

20· · Dr. Turnbull about the correction or the quotes, could you

21· · let me know?· Have we come across it yet?

22· · A.· · · ·No.· I don't think so.· But I think it was very

23· · much along the same lines of what we're discussing here.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And then, in paragraph 73, you have a

25· · quote, a block quote, right, from the '541 patent from

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 94 of 157 PageID #:

5434
·1· · column 107.· Do you see that?

·2· · A.· · · ·I do.

·3· · Q.· · · ·And this paragraph, it doesn't use the phrase,

·4· · quote, background activity or the phrase, quote, foreground

·5· · activity.· Right?

·6· · A.· · · ·That's right.· It has background and foreground in

·7· · this paragraph.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.· And it includes the phrase "foreground of

·9· · user interaction" or "in the background of user

10· · interaction."· Do you see that?

11· · A.· · · ·I do.· We've got that marked in bold here.

12· · Q.· · · ·Is that language in claim 1 of the '541 patent

13· · foreground of user interaction or background of user

14· · interaction?

15· · A.· · · ·No.

16· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· In paragraph 74, you start to say,

17· · compounding the confusion, claim 6 of the '613 patent --

18· · dot, dot, dot.

19· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

20· · A.· · · ·I do.

21· · Q.· · · ·And is this intended to support your

22· · indefiniteness opinions for all three terms in section B?

23· · A.· · · ·Yes.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· My question for you is, how can a dependent

25· · claim, claim 6 of the '61 [sic] patent, support

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 95 of 157 PageID #:

5435
·1· · indefiniteness of a different claim, claim 1 of the '541

·2· · patent?

·3· · A.· · · ·Because they're all discussing the same concept of

·4· · which we referred to earlier, this idea of something in the

·5· · background or a background activity.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Do you know if that's legally proper?

·7· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I -- I'm not sure I even understand

·9· · the question, so that probably means it's a legal question.

10· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

11· · Q.· · · ·Have you ever heard of a claim being found

12· · indefinite because of a depending claim of another patent?

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I just don't know the case law

15· · related to that.· I think why I have all this here together

16· · is I'm trying to look for help within the patent, whether

17· · it's the written description or the claims, to try to

18· · understand what these terms that, you know, in my opinion,

19· · are indefinite are, and I'm struggling to try to find that.

20· · So I'm referring to things in here, whether it's in claim 1

21· · of either patent or in claim 6 of the '613, to try to

22· · understand that.

23· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

24· · Q.· · · ·Right.· But you say "compounding the confusion."

25· · So you seem to be saying this makes it more confusing or

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 96 of 157 PageID #:

5436
·1· · more ambiguous.

·2· · · · · · ·I'm just trying to understand, you know, if a

·3· · person of skill in the art is looking at the '541 patent

·4· · and looking at claim 1, would they really be looking at

·5· · other patents and other claims, dependent claims of other

·6· · patents, as part of what they're looking at?

·7· · A.· · · ·They certainly could be looking at other patents.

·8· · That's too broad to understand the possibilities of what

·9· · everyone could do.· But as we've noted, I guess, at least a

10· · couple times today, both the '541 and the '613 essentially

11· · have the same written description.· So I would be looking

12· · at that and trying to assume that they're part of the same

13· · family.

14· · · · · · ·And, again, when you just don't have anything

15· · that's definitive to help with these, you're trying to look

16· · for any help you can get.· And I looked at claim 6, that's

17· · one of claims in contention, for claim construction.· And

18· · in looking at it, it doesn't help.· It -- like I say here,

19· · it kind of compounds or adds to the confusion because it's

20· · not specific.· It doesn't help any.· If anything, it makes

21· · it worse in trying to understand what the claim terms mean.

22· · Q.· · · ·Is there any claim differentiation issue between

23· · claim 1 of the '541 patent and claim 6 of the '613 patent?

24· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure I understand the

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 97 of 157 PageID #:

5437
·1· · question.· But I think the answer would be something that I

·2· · have here in paragraph 74, right there in the middle. I

·3· · have been informed that, through a doctrine called claim

·4· · differentiation, independent claims are assumed to have a

·5· · broader scope than the dependent claims.

·6· · · · · · ·And then I can read the rest of it, but that's

·7· · essentially what I was trying to do here based on that

·8· · understanding.

·9· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

10· · Q.· · · ·Right.

11· · · · · · ·But claim 6 of the '613 patent is not a dependent

12· · claim from --

13· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·But claim 6 of the '613 patent is not a dependent

16· · claim from claim 1 of the '541 patent, correct?

17· · A.· · · ·No.

18· · Q.· · · ·And so there wouldn't be any presumption of claim

19· · differentiation between those two claims.

20· · A.· · · ·I think that's a legal opinion or a legal

21· · conclusion.· All I'm saying is that this claim 6 has this

22· · term in it.· I'm trying to understand it.· The '541 and

23· · the '613 share the same specification.· So when I'm left

24· · with so little information to definitively understand the

25· · claim term, I'm looking for anything that can help, and

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 98 of 157 PageID #:

5438
·1· · that's why they're all in this section together.

·2· · Q.· · · ·You mentioned earlier, Dr. Turnbull, that you

·3· · looked through the list of references cited for the '541

·4· · and the '613 patents?

·5· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I'm sure I reviewed some of them or at

·6· · least looked at -- you know, there's columns and columns of

·7· · information, but I'm sure I looked at them.· Yes.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· But you don't recall any specific reference

·9· · that you analyzed?

10· · A.· · · ·No.· Not specifically.

11· · Q.· · · ·And you don't rely on them in your claim

12· · construction opinions, do you?

13· · A.· · · ·Not per se.· Like I said, I remembered one

14· · article, so the reliance was something like that article

15· · would just be part of the accumulated skills and experience

16· · that I have in trying to use all the things that I've read

17· · or programmed or worked on or discussed with people in my

18· · whole career to try to inform understanding of what these

19· · claim terms mean.· And some of those references -- again,

20· · that one paper I think I mentioned specifically could be

21· · part of that.

22· · Q.· · · ·But we would have no idea like what that paper is

23· · or what part of your opinions it relates to, right?

24· · A.· · · ·Oh, well, I can tell you right now.· I can just

25· · scroll to page 1 of the '541 patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 99 of 157 PageID #:

5439
·1· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

·2· · A.· · · ·And I see the one that rings a bell right there.

·3· · It's the Rao paper.· I think there's some guides from

·4· · maybe -- I don't remember specifically -- maybe New York

·5· · City University.· And, again, it's talking about

·6· · location-based services or LBS.· I think it's one of the

·7· · earlier papers that does that.

·8· · · · · · ·But I think it would be really, really quite a

·9· · task for me to try to think of every document or thing that

10· · I've read or reviewed or, you know, seen a presentation of

11· · that would inform my opinion.· It would be thousands and

12· · thousands of documents.· So it might be unreasonable for me

13· · to try to include that as things that inform my opinion.

14· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Can you point me to what you were talking

15· · about?· You went kind of fast.

16· · A.· · · ·Oh, I'm sorry.· I hope I didn't go too fast for

17· · Julie as well.

18· · · · · · ·Yeah.· On page 1 of the '541 patent, there's a

19· · list in the second column called other publications.· And I

20· · recognized one.· I guess it's the one right before it says

21· · continued.· It's authored by Rao, R-a-o.· And I just

22· · remember the paper.· Evolution of mobile location-based

23· · services.

24· · Q.· · · ·And do you -- do you know the author?

25· · A.· · · ·If I do, I -- you know, it was passing

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 100 of 157 PageID #:

5440
·1· · conversation at a conference or something like that.· It's

·2· · an article in the communications of the ACM, which, I

·3· · guess, is probably the premier journal of computer science.

·4· · I've had an article in that myself maybe a couple years

·5· · before this.

·6· · Q.· · · ·And looking at this paper, can you point me to any

·7· · part of your opinions that it would be relevant to or that

·8· · informed any specific part?

·9· · A.· · · ·No.· Again, I'm not sure I even went to go look at

10· · it.· I just remember the paper.· I probably have it

11· · somewhere in my digital library.· But it's just one of many

12· · things that, over my career, I would have read because I'm

13· · curious, and that's my area of research that would just be

14· · part of something that informed my opinions.

15· · · · · · ·Again, I've probably read thousands of documents,

16· · whether it's academic papers, textbooks, again, conference

17· · presentations, programming books, that all informed my

18· · opinion.

19· · Q.· · · ·Have you reviewed any -- are you familiar with the

20· · Rao patent or patent with Rao?

21· · A.· · · ·No.· I'm not familiar with anything else by the

22· · author off the top of my head.· I think there's a couple of

23· · people, as you might guess, named Rao that are computer

24· · scientists.· This is not Romana Rao, who I think I went to

25· · school with at Georgia Tech.· So there's even a difference

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 101 of 157 PageID #:

5441
·1· · there.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Right.· And when I say a "Rao" patent, I don't

·3· · know if it's the same person or not.

·4· · · · · · ·My question was, do you recall a patent, you know,

·5· · with an inventor named Rao?

·6· · A.· · · ·No.· I don't.· Not off the top of my head.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

·8· · · · · · ·Let's turn to the third term that's in claim 6 of

·9· · the '613 patent.· Do you see that?

10· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Pardon me.· I was clearing my

12· · throat.

13· · · · · · ·Do you mean the third element that I have in my

14· · heading level B?· Is that what you're referring to?

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·Yes, yes.· The user of the device.

17· · A.· · · ·Okay.

18· · Q.· · · ·That term.· It's in claim 6 of the '613 patent.

19· · Do you see that?

20· · A.· · · ·Yes.

21· · Q.· · · ·Earlier, you mentioned a claim construction order

22· · that you reviewed.· Do you remember anything about the

23· · claim construction order?

24· · A.· · · ·Not specifically.· I think, maybe vaguely, Judge

25· · Payne decided to work with plain and ordinary meaning.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 102 of 157 PageID #:

5442
·1· · That may be about all I recall off the top of my head.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Do you remember what the terms was about or what

·3· · it might be relevant to?

·4· · A.· · · ·No.· I just didn't memorize that.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So does that cause you to change any

·6· · opinions or want to offer any additional opinions?

·7· · A.· · · ·If you want, you could -- you could, you know, put

·8· · it up, and we can look at it.· I would say I recall that I

·9· · think that Judge Payne decided to use plain and ordinary

10· · meaning.· And then I think another thing that stands out is

11· · that was via Samsung; is that correct?

12· · Q.· · · ·It may well be.

13· · A.· · · ·Oh.· That Samsung -- I don't think they used an

14· · expert in their brief related to claim construction.· And

15· · so it strikes me -- not that I think I should be involved

16· · in everything or that everything should have an expert, but

17· · I bet it would have made a difference if there was an

18· · expert declaration to help establish why the claim term

19· · might need some help defining it.· And I don't think there

20· · was one that Judge Payne had available to make his

21· · decision.

22· · Q.· · · ·I'm just trying -- and I don't -- if you don't

23· · have any opinions, I'm not asking you to speculate.· But

24· · I'm just trying to understand, you know, the relevance of

25· · you looking at that order or if you formed any opinions

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 103 of 157 PageID #:

5443
·1· · that -- if you formed any opinions based on that.· And can

·2· · you say anything beyond what you've said?· You remember it

·3· · was Judge Payne order.· He said plain and ordinary meaning.

·4· · Do you even remember what term it was about?

·5· · A.· · · ·Off the top of my head, I just don't.· I just read

·6· · too many things recently to remember that.· I hope we're

·7· · referring to the same one, in fact.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And the order that you're referring to --

·9· · strike that.

10· · · · · · ·You just said that your recollection was that

11· · Samsung or the party did not submit an expert declaration,

12· · right?

13· · A.· · · ·That's right.

14· · Q.· · · ·And so were there disagreements with Judge Payne's

15· · order that you had or his findings or reasoning?

16· · A.· · · ·I don't think I have anything else to say that I

17· · already haven't.· Again, the lack of an expert, I think,

18· · you know, doesn't give someone, you know, a full expert

19· · opinion about the aspect, and it's disappointing that that

20· · wasn't available to make Judge Payne's decision more

21· · informed.

22· · Q.· · · ·Can you think of anything that Judge Payne got

23· · wrong or that you disagree with?

24· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I just don't recall looking at it.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 104 of 157 PageID #:

5444
·1· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·2· · Q.· · · ·And throughout -- of all the terms that you

·3· · discuss in your declaration that -- and we've talked about

·4· · most of them -- do you remember if Judge Payne's order

·5· · relates to any of them or which ones it relates to?

·6· · A.· · · ·No.· I just didn't memorize it.· Again, if you

·7· · want me to look at it, we can look at it and see if we have

·8· · some matches here.· I'm guessing there's an overlap because

·9· · that's why I was asked to look at it.

10· · Q.· · · ·You were asked by counsel to look at it?

11· · A.· · · ·Yeah.

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Let's go off the record.

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Okay.

14· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 12:14 p.m.

15· · We're going off the video record.

16· · · · · · ·(Lunch recess taken.)

17· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· The time is now 12:49 p.m., and

18· · we're back on the video record.· Thank you.

19· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

20· · Q.· · · ·Welcome back, Dr. Turnbull.

21· · A.· · · ·Thank you.

22· · Q.· · · ·Did you have a nice lunch break?

23· · A.· · · ·I guess so.· How about you?

24· · Q.· · · ·I just had a bagel in my office, but not bad.

25· · · · · · ·Did you have discussions with your counsel during

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 105 of 157 PageID #:

5445
·1· · the break?

·2· · A.· · · ·No.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Let's turn back to the heading -- your heading B

·4· · of the declaration on page 22.

·5· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I'm with you.

·6· · Q.· · · ·And I want to ask you about the last term. I

·7· · think that's what we were discussing before the break --

·8· · which says (as read):

·9· · · · · · · · ·The user of the device is directly interacting

10· · · · · · ·with that application or perceiving any benefit

11· · · · · · ·from that application.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·And that's in dependent claim 6 of the '613

15· · patent, right?

16· · A.· · · ·At least in that.· Yes.

17· · Q.· · · ·But here, that's the only term that -- that's the

18· · only claim that you list here, right?· So as far as we

19· · know, it doesn't pertain to other claims.

20· · A.· · · ·No.· That's what we're discussing here.

21· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Sorry.· I object to the form on

22· · that question.

23· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

24· · Q.· · · ·So it may be helpful to take a look at the '613

25· · patent that's Exhibit 4 that we introduced.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 106 of 157 PageID #:

5446
·1· · A.· · · ·I've got it here, and I'm on the page column

·2· · of Exhibit 4 with claim 6 on it.

·3· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And so that -- that just says that the --

·4· · this -- the claim, right?· The claim term, it comes from

·5· · claim 6.· And it says (as read):

·6· · · · · · · · ·Wherein the one or more processors are

·7· · · · · · ·configured to classify -- dot, dot, dot.

·8· · · · · · ·And then (as read):

·9· · · · · · · · ·When the user of the device is directly

10· · · · · · ·interacting with that application or perceiving

11· · · · · · ·any benefit from that application.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·That's right.· I do see that.

14· · Q.· · · ·And the term is the -- really, the last clause of

15· · claim 6.

16· · A.· · · ·Yes.

17· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Now, let's focus on the term -- now that

18· · we've seen the context, the term that you've identified.

19· · And I just want to focus on the first part of it.· It says

20· · (as read):

21· · · · · · · · ·The user of the device is directly interacting

22· · · · · · ·with that application.

23· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

24· · A.· · · ·I do.

25· · Q.· · · ·All right.· You don't have an opinion that that

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 107 of 157 PageID #:

5447
·1· · term is indefinite, correct?

·2· · A.· · · ·I'm -- I think that's what I'm referring to in

·3· · that subsection B, if that's what your question is.· Maybe

·4· · I don't understand the question.

·5· · Q.· · · ·No.· So I want to focus on this term that you've

·6· · identified for construction, and I understand you have an

·7· · indefiniteness opinion, but I just want to understand where

·8· · your argument is.

·9· · · · · · ·And the first part of the term, it says (as read):

10· · · · · · · · ·The user of the device is directly interacting

11· · · · · · ·with that application.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·And then it says (as read):

15· · · · · · · · ·Or perceiving any benefit from the

16· · · · · · ·application.

17· · · · · · ·Right?

18· · A.· · · ·That's right.· That whole phrase.

19· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.· So let's ignore the "or perceiving any

20· · benefit from the application."· Let's put that aside for

21· · now.

22· · · · · · ·My question is, do you have any opinion that the

23· · first part of that term is indefinite?

24· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· That's kind of what this whole section is

25· · about.· I'm talking about this is related to background and

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 108 of 157 PageID #:

5448
·1· · foreground again.· And directly interacting leads into that

·2· · or is informed by that as well.

·3· · · · · · ·So I think of that whole phrase in the claim as

·4· · something that I'm saying is indefinite.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So, Dr. Turnbull, take a look at

·6· · paragraph 82 of your declaration.

·7· · A.· · · ·Okay.

·8· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So here you say (as read):

·9· · · · · · · · ·Finally, claim 6 of the '613 patent is, in my

10· · · · · · ·opinion, indefinite because it relies on a user's

11· · · · · · ·subjective experience.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·Yes.

14· · Q.· · · ·In this paragraph 82 and 83, you're talking about

15· · the language "perceives any benefit," right?

16· · A.· · · ·That's right.· Or just benefit, even.· Yes.

17· · Q.· · · ·Or benefit.· Okay.· So I understand that you have

18· · an argument for that.

19· · · · · · ·But my question is -- for the first part of the

20· · term where it just says (as read):

21· · · · · · · · ·User -- user of the device is directly

22· · · · · · ·interacting with that application.

23· · · · · · ·I want to focus you on that part.

24· · · · · · ·Do you have any opinion or argument that that is

25· · indefinite?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 109 of 157 PageID #:

5449
·1· · A.· · · ·Yes.· I think that's just a couple paragraphs

·2· · above.· Let me see here.

·3· · · · · · ·I -- I mention that whole phrase starting -- or at

·4· · least in one place in paragraph 74, and I mention that --

·5· · the middle sentence there, I say in paragraph 74, for

·6· · instance, this suggests there is some other way a user can

·7· · be indirectly interacting with an application.

·8· · · · · · ·And then, in the next paragraph, I'm talking,

·9· · again, about a user directly interacting with the

10· · application, and I think that follows for a couple more

11· · paragraphs.

12· · · · · · ·So I think all of that is discussing what you just

13· · asked about.

14· · Q.· · · ·So the way that I read your opinions was that you

15· · were relying on claim 6 to make an argument about claim 1,

16· · about the term that appears in claim 1, but I did not

17· · see -- and maybe you can point me to something specific

18· · that, you know, argues that the term that you've identified

19· · in claim 6, the first part of it, the user of the device is

20· · directly interacting with that application, is indefinite.

21· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· Maybe we're just not syncing up here. I

22· · feel like that is what I read out and I'm discussing in

23· · paragraph 74, 75, and so on.· I'm discussing that

24· · specifically.

25· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So in paragraph 74, you're talking about

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 110 of 157 PageID #:

5450
·1· · claim differentiation.· And then saying something about

·2· · claim 1, right?· You're saying that this creates

·3· · uncertainty about interacting with the user as recited in

·4· · independent claim 1.

·5· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·6· · A.· · · ·I do.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So what about that says that the part of

·8· · claim 6 is indefinite?

·9· · A.· · · ·Because I'm talking about claim 6.· At the

10· · beginning, I'm trying to understand, and claim 6 adds to

11· · the confusion so it doesn't help.· Claim 6, therefore, is

12· · indefinite as well.· And then that's where I go on for a

13· · couple of paragraphs -- or three or four paragraphs, in

14· · fact, discussing that.

15· · Q.· · · ·So is it the part of claim 6 that says interacting

16· · with the user in the user device interface foreground?

17· · A.· · · ·I'm mostly focused on what, again, I have detailed

18· · in quotes and that heading B but also, here, what I have in

19· · bold.· So it's the latter part.· So if you were to continue

20· · reading, that's what I'm discussing.

21· · · · · · ·(As read):

22· · · · · · · · ·The user of the device is directly interacting

23· · · · · · ·with that application or perceiving any benefit

24· · · · · · ·from that application.

25· · Q.· · · ·Yeah.· The way that I read your opinions,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 111 of 157 PageID #:

5451
·1· · Dr. Turnbull, was that you understood what directly

·2· · interacting means, but you just -- you raised some argument

·3· · about what interacting means or how that scope is affected

·4· · in view of claim 6.

·5· · · · · · ·But maybe you can just articulate to me what's

·6· · allegedly ambiguous or indefinite about directly -- user is

·7· · directly interacting with that application.

·8· · A.· · · ·I think it's kind of succinct right there, at

·9· · least beginning in paragraph 74.· I think that's what I

10· · just read.· I say, again, more to the ambiguity or the

11· · indefiniteness.· For instance, this suggests that there is

12· · some other way a user can be indirectly interacting with an

13· · application without the user perceiving a benefit.· So it

14· · doesn't -- we have this alternative, so it's not really

15· · specific.

16· · · · · · ·Then, again, I go on and discuss some various

17· · other arguments as well that are my opinion about this idea

18· · of the user of the device is directly interacting with that

19· · application or perceiving any benefit from that

20· · application.· So I feel like this whole section discusses

21· · that.

22· · Q.· · · ·For claim 1, you're raising the argument

23· · "indirectly interacting."· But when -- the language I'm

24· · asking you about is "directly interacting."· I don't

25· · believe you have any such argument for directly interacting

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 112 of 157 PageID #:

5452
·1· · for claim 6 in your report.· And if you could point me to

·2· · it.

·3· · A.· · · ·Again, I think that's what this whole section

·4· · includes.· I'm talking about directly interacting in quotes

·5· · in paragraph 75.· That's from claim 6.· That's what's

·6· · there.

·7· · · · · · ·So maybe I just don't understand the question, or

·8· · it's some rhetorical point or something I'm not

·9· · understanding.

10· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· In claim 75 [sic], I don't see any opinion

11· · about directly interacting being indefinite.· I think, if

12· · anything, it suggests that there is some explanation for

13· · that.· So I'm not seeing it in paragraph 75.

14· · A.· · · ·I feel like it's there.· I'm discussing it.· I'm

15· · trying to make sense of it.· And in trying to make sense of

16· · it, the idea is that -- try to make sense of it is because

17· · it's not definite.· So that's why I'm looking at things in

18· · the patent to try to understand it.· And, again, continue

19· · into other paragraphs as well.

20· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I'm not seeing it in the your report, but

21· · maybe let me just ask you.· What is indefinite about the

22· · first part of that language?

23· · · · · · ·(As read):

24· · · · · · · · ·The user device is directly interacting with

25· · · · · · ·that application.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 113 of 157 PageID #:

5453
·1· · · · · · ·Explain to me why that's allegedly indefinite.

·2· · A.· · · ·We don't understand the full breadth of it, and

·3· · that's what I discuss here in the subsequent paragraphs.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Can you give me an example of what would not be

·5· · understood?

·6· · A.· · · ·Well, like I read now -- I'll read it for the

·7· · third time -- in paragraph 74, for instance, this suggests

·8· · there is some other way that a user can be indirectly

·9· · interacting with an application without the user perceiving

10· · a benefit from that application.· So we don't really

11· · understand directly definitively, and then there's this

12· · contrast in, is there something that's not that or is that

13· · everything.· And then me trying to parse through that,

14· · either explaining using examples or discussing what I think

15· · that might mean in terms of directly, indirectly, related

16· · to, say, foreground and background as well.· I feel like

17· · that's what this whole section is about.

18· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So then there's the -- a separate phrase at

19· · the end (as read):

20· · · · · · · · ·Or perceiving any benefit from that

21· · · · · · ·application.

22· · · · · · ·And so I understand that you have an opinion for

23· · that.· I was trying to focus you on the first part.· But I

24· · heard in your answer you refer back to that language,

25· · "perceiving any benefit from."

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 114 of 157 PageID #:

5454
·1· · · · · · ·So is that the basis of your indefiniteness

·2· · opinion?

·3· · A.· · · ·That's in here, too, later on.· But I'd say all

·4· · these paragraphs are part of my analysis and my opinion and

·5· · my attempt to understand based on what's in the patents

·6· · themselves, what the claim language means.

·7· · Q.· · · ·Let me ask you about the language of the second

·8· · term in claim 1.

·9· · A.· · · ·Okay.

10· · Q.· · · ·Can you read the second term you have in the

11· · heading of B, the one that's in '613 patent, claim 1.

12· · A.· · · ·Sure.· It's (as read):

13· · · · · · · · ·Classify whether a particular application

14· · · · · · ·capable of both interacting with the user in a

15· · · · · · ·user interface foreground of the device and at

16· · · · · · ·least some internet service activities when not

17· · · · · · ·interacting with the user in the device user

18· · · · · · ·interface foreground is interacting with the user

19· · · · · · ·in the device user interface foreground.

20· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I want to focus you on the middle part of

21· · that term that you just read.· And it says (as read):

22· · · · · · · · ·Application capable of both interacting with

23· · · · · · ·the user in a user interface foreground of the

24· · · · · · ·device and at least some internet service

25· · · · · · ·activities when not interacting with the user in

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 115 of 157 PageID #:

5455
·1· · · · · · ·the user device foreground.

·2· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·3· · A.· · · ·I do.

·4· · Q.· · · ·Do you understand that that whole phrase I just

·5· · read is a noun?

·6· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I just don't think of it that way.

·8· · It's a phrase.

·9· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

10· · Q.· · · ·But it's talking about like an application capable

11· · of some functionality, but it's -- the whole thing is

12· · talking about the application, right?

13· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I'll agree it's trying to describe a

14· · particular application.· Yes.

15· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And so do you offer any opinion that

16· · that -- what I've called a noun is indefinite?

17· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I guess the whole phrase to me is

19· · indefinite.· Even adding that on doesn't help define it

20· · specifically.

21· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

22· · Q.· · · ·What do you mean, adding the whole phrase?

23· · A.· · · ·Well, I'm not going to -- I'm -- didn't claim that

24· · I'm saying that the word "application" is indefinite.· I'm

25· · saying that -- for example, I'm saying the whole phrase,

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 116 of 157 PageID #:

5456
·1· · that part of the claim, that claim language is indefinite.

·2· · Q.· · · ·I understand.· Yeah.· Your opinion is you have

·3· · this indefiniteness argument for the whole claim term,

·4· · which, you know -- at the end, if we look back at heading

·5· · B, right, there's the end, which is, is interacting with

·6· · the user in the user device foreground.

·7· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·8· · A.· · · ·In the device user interface foreground, yes.

·9· · Q.· · · ·Yes.· Okay.

10· · · · · · ·So I see that that last part is an action or a

11· · verb.

12· · · · · · ·Do you agree with that?

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's just a modifier.· It just is

15· · part of the phrase itself.· I'm really not thinking about

16· · whole phrases.

17· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

18· · Q.· · · ·The beginning part is, classify whether a

19· · particular application, you know, dot, dot, dot, is

20· · interacting with the user, right?· So it's talking about

21· · classifying whether an application is doing this, right?

22· · A.· · · ·Yes.

23· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So I'm not asking about that right now.

24· · I'm not.· I'm asking you about the middle part, right,

25· · where it says, an application capable of, and I suggested

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 117 of 157 PageID #:

5457
·1· · that this could be considered a verb, you know, a type of

·2· · application.· I'm sorry.· I suggested it could be a noun.

·3· · A type of application that has this property.· Do you see

·4· · that, "capable of"?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do see that.· I think I'm still

·7· · just not following you.· Maybe you -- we're both --· you're

·8· · thinking about the individual words.· I'm thinking about

·9· · what the phrase means, what the phrase means in the context

10· · of the rest of the claim, the whole patent, both in my

11· · opinion and from a person of skill, and, I mean, maybe even

12· · our difficulty understanding each other here is some

13· · indication that it's an indefinite claim term or it doesn't

14· · help any.

15· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

16· · Q.· · · ·I don't think it does, Doctor.

17· · · · · · ·But -- so I'm asking you about that application.

18· · An application -- let me read it again.· Okay?· (As read):

19· · · · · · · · ·An application capable of both interacting

20· · · · · · ·with the user in a user interface foreground of

21· · · · · · ·the device and at least some internet service

22· · · · · · ·activities when not interacting with the user in

23· · · · · · ·the user device interface foreground, period.

24· · · · · · ·Okay.· That's talking about an application or a

25· · type of application.· Do you have an opinion that that's

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 118 of 157 PageID #:

5458
·1· · indefinite?

·2· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· I feel like that's still indefinite.· And

·3· · part of that is both, A, I'm talking about that whole

·4· · phrase, so I don't think about each of these elements

·5· · individually, or I would have just talked about them

·6· · specifically individually, but also because we have the

·7· · discussion that we talked about earlier.· And it's also in

·8· · other paragraphs in my report in this section, about what

·9· · foreground means and a little bit about what even

10· · interacting means.· So I don't really draw any distinction

11· · in trying to parse out one word or two words in this phrase

12· · is somehow different than my overall opinion.

13· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And where can you point me in your report

14· · to why the -- what I call a noun or that type of

15· · application is indefinite?

16· · A.· · · ·I think this whole section -- I mean, it's not

17· · many paragraphs -- discusses it in various ways, whether

18· · we're talking about applications, what activities are, and

19· · then, of course, the foreground and background issue as

20· · well.· So it's just all in this section.· So the entirety

21· · of this section covers that.

22· · Q.· · · ·Can you be more specific on pointing me to a

23· · specific paragraph or part of it, because I'm not seeing

24· · it.

25· · A.· · · ·I feel like this entire section discusses these

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 119 of 157 PageID #:

5459
·1· · issues.· I don't know how to be more clear about it. I

·2· · think I put a lot of effort into writing this part and

·3· · trying to explain my opinions and the issues related to the

·4· · claim terms.· I don't really have anything else to add off

·5· · the top of my head.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let's look at the last part of this term.

·7· · It says (as read):

·8· · · · · · · · ·Is interacting with the user in the device

·9· · · · · · ·user interface foreground.

10· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

11· · A.· · · ·Yeah.· After the comma, I guess.

12· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

13· · · · · · ·The user is the user of the wireless end-user

14· · device, right?

15· · A.· · · ·I assume so.

16· · Q.· · · ·Look at the term "device user interface

17· · foreground."· Do you see that at the end?

18· · A.· · · ·Yes.

19· · Q.· · · ·Is that a technical term of art?· Device user

20· · interface --

21· · A.· · · ·I don't think of it as a common term of art. I

22· · don't think people use that just chatting about building

23· · software.· No.

24· · Q.· · · ·Do you have any opinions that this is an unknown

25· · term to a person skilled in the art, device user interface

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 120 of 157 PageID #:

5460
·1· · foreground?

·2· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure I have a distinction between it being

·3· · unknown and it being indefinite as I detail in my

·4· · discussion after that.· If -- I don't know if you're asking

·5· · for a difference between those two words, indefinite versus

·6· · unknown.

·7· · Q.· · · ·I'm asking you -- unknown, like it would be a term

·8· · unfamiliar to a POSITA.

·9· · A.· · · ·It's certainly not a common term.

10· · Q.· · · ·But you're not saying it would be unknown or

11· · unfamiliar --

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object --

13· · · · · · ·(Clarification by the certified stenographer.)

14· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

15· · · · · · ·You can answer.

16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· If you'll just ask me again.· That

17· · way I make sure I get it right.

18· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

19· · Q.· · · ·Sure.· It's -- let me look.

20· · · · · · ·But you are not saying that it would be unknown or

21· · unfamiliar to a POSITA.

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that's what I am -- I am

24· · saying.· I'm not sure I even understand the full breadth of

25· · what that means.· Like has that phrase never been used

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 121 of 157 PageID #:

5461
·1· · before?· Is that what you mean by unknown?· I'm not sure

·2· · I've seen it in -- anywhere else.· It's -- it's vague. I

·3· · don't think that's -- it's a common term to a person of

·4· · skill.· So, I guess, because it is vague and, as I've said

·5· · here, it's indefinite.· It's certainly not anything that's

·6· · familiar to me.

·7· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·8· · Q.· · · ·You're saying user interface foreground is not

·9· · familiar to you?

10· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's -- it's not a term or phrase

12· · that I think I've ever used.· We were also, I think,

13· · talking about device user interface foreground as well.

14· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

15· · Q.· · · ·So your opinion is that both of them are not

16· · familiar phrases, device user interface foreground, or user

17· · interface foreground?

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· They're certainly not common

20· · terms.

21· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

22· · Q.· · · ·Do you cite any evidence for this idea that

23· · they're uncommon or unknown?

24· · A.· · · ·I guess maybe we're back to two issues there.

25· · Like I'm trying to prove an negative.· Like I didn't go

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 122 of 157 PageID #:

5462
·1· · analyze the entire internet and every paper I've ever read

·2· · to see if that phrase is in there.· But at the same time, I

·3· · have read a lot of things, and I'm familiar with doing

·4· · this, and I understand a person of skill.· I exceed that.

·5· · And it's certainly not a common term to me.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Have you looked at the many references that

·7· · discuss background or foreground cited on the face of these

·8· · patents?

·9· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object to form.

10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know what those references

11· · are.· You'd have to show me what they are.

12· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

13· · Q.· · · ·Did you do that analysis?· Did you look at the

14· · titles of the patents cited on the face of the '541 or '613

15· · patents?

16· · A.· · · ·Are you asking if I looked at the titles of all of

17· · the references cited and noticed if they use in their

18· · titles the word "background" or "foreground"?

19· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

20· · A.· · · ·If I did that, I don't recall doing that.· It's

21· · possible that I looked at some of them, but sitting here

22· · today, I just don't have a memory of doing that very

23· · specific task.

24· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So before, you referred to your background

25· · as a person of skill.· So apart from your background and

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 123 of 157 PageID #:

5463
·1· · knowledge, do you cite any other evidence that supports the

·2· · term user device foreground -- sorry -- "user interface

·3· · foreground" or "device user interface foreground" being

·4· · uncommon or unknown?

·5· · A.· · · ·I think the fact that I'm claiming in this report

·6· · that it's part of an indefinite phrase and devote several

·7· · paragraphs to discussing the concept of foreground and, I

·8· · guess, alternatively, background, and that's based on my

·9· · own skills and experience, that kind of by definition I'm

10· · saying that they're not common terms.

11· · · · · · ·And, again, all of the things that I've read over

12· · my history in building applications, computer science,

13· · architectures, and understanding things like that, that's

14· · what this is all based on.· Simple as that, at least.

15· · Q.· · · ·Doctor, when we were looking at your CV, we talked

16· · about the Headwater case, the last one that appears in your

17· · CV.· Do you recall that?

18· · A.· · · ·I do.

19· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Do you recall how many terms you offered

20· · opinions on?

21· · A.· · · ·Not off the top of my head.· No.

22· · Q.· · · ·Does seven sound correct?

23· · A.· · · ·I would think that's in the ballpark.

24· · Q.· · · ·And do you know if any of those terms were found

25· · to be indefinite by the court?

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 124 of 157 PageID #:

5464
·1· · A.· · · ·I don't know.· I'm not sure that's even been

·2· · decided yet.· I just don't recall.

·3· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Let's look at another exhibit.

·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· All right.· It looks like you

·5· · labeled this as Exhibit 5.

·6· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Yes --

·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· And I've got it open.

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Okay.· I'm introducing as

·9· · Exhibit 5, a document entitled claim Construction Order.

10· · And this is case 2:23-CV-00103 in the case of Headwater

11· · versus Samsung, docket 118.· And this page [sic] is 19

12· · pages long.

13· · · · · · ·(Exhibit 5 was presented and subsequently marked

14· · · · · · ·for identification.)

15· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.

16· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

17· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Doctor, have you seen this document before?

18· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure I have.· Let me scroll to the bottom

19· · here.

20· · · · · · ·I see that it's also an opinion that Judge Payne

21· · has signed, but I think the one we were referring to

22· · earlier had a different page count, so I don't think that's

23· · what this one is.· And I, again, just don't have a memory

24· · of what the case numbers are to differentiate them.

25· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Let me first ask you.· Is this the case

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 125 of 157 PageID #:

5465
·1· · that you submitted a declaration in regarding claim

·2· · construction?

·3· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure.· I just don't remember the number.

·4· · The patent numbers look familiar there, but, you know, I

·5· · see a lot of numbers.

·6· · Q.· · · ·Maybe this would help.· If you turn to page 9 of

·7· · the document I just sent.· Do you see there's a section on

·8· · the level of ordinary skill in the art?

·9· · A.· · · ·I do see that.· Yes.

10· · Q.· · · ·And do you see here that -- text "Samsung

11· · asserts," and then it quotes your name.

12· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · A.· · · ·I do.· I see it says Turnbull declaration.

14· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· So does this refresh your recollection that

15· · this is the case that you submitted a declaration in?

16· · A.· · · ·I guess it must be.· Again, I just don't remember

17· · the number, but I think it's the only other case related to

18· · these matters that I'm involved in.· So I'm guessing that's

19· · what this is.

20· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· I want you to look at page 2 of this

21· · document at the top of it.· And in the core it says, the

22· · parties present five disputes about claim scope.· And then

23· · it says --

24· · A.· · · ·I see that on page 2.

25· · Q.· · · ·Right.· And it says that, for each, Samsung

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 126 of 157 PageID #:

5466
·1· · contends the associated term is indefinite, whereas

·2· · Headwater asserts that the term has an ordinary, customary

·3· · meaning that should apply.

·4· · · · · · ·Do you see that?

·5· · A.· · · ·I do.

·6· · Q.· · · ·And then let me turn your attention to the last

·7· · page.· And do you see that the court has its constructions?

·8· · A.· · · ·The last page of the entire document?

·9· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

10· · A.· · · ·Oh.· I do.· It looks like page 19 has a heading

11· · that essentially is the first thing that says conclusion.

12· · Q.· · · ·Right.

13· · · · · · ·And none of the terms are found indefinite.

14· · Right?

15· · A.· · · ·I don't see them marked as such here.

16· · Q.· · · ·In all of these Headwater cases, have you ever

17· · offered an opinion other than indefiniteness?

18· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure.· I just don't recall.

19· · Q.· · · ·And at least in this case, the court did not find

20· · any terms indefinite, right?

21· · A.· · · ·I'm not sure.· When we were discussing something

22· · earlier, I thought you said that my work on what I guess is

23· · this case -- I talked about seven terms.· I only see five

24· · rows here.· So I don't know if there are two someplace else

25· · or I misremembered what you said or you meant something

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 127 of 157 PageID #:

5467
·1· · else.

·2· · Q.· · · ·Or Samsung withdrew those terms?

·3· · A.· · · ·Oh, yes.· See, I just don't know.· This is the

·4· · first time I've seen this document, to my memory.

·5· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· All right.· So I want to be clear that you

·6· · had referenced a claim construction order before, but this

·7· · is not the one that you reviewed.

·8· · A.· · · ·No.· I don't think so.· Because I think one of the

·9· · takeaways from the other one was that Samsung didn't have

10· · an expert, and this one, as you pointed out to me -- I'm

11· · the expert.

12· · Q.· · · ·Right.

13· · · · · · ·Let me also call your attention to page 14 of this

14· · order.

15· · A.· · · ·I'm on page 14.

16· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· Do you see in the middle of this page the

17· · court says, this phrase is not indefinite?· Do you see

18· · that?

19· · A.· · · ·It's at the beginning of the second full

20· · paragraph?

21· · Q.· · · ·Yes.

22· · A.· · · ·I see that sentence.· Yes.

23· · Q.· · · ·And then it says, for one, the court agrees that

24· · Dr. Turnbull's declaration on this term is conclusory.

25· · A.· · · ·Okay.· I see that.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 128 of 157 PageID #:

5468
·1· · Q.· · · ·Okay.

·2· · · · · · ·All right.· Let's turn back to your declaration in

·3· · this case, Doctor.

·4· · · · · · ·So in this case, you're opining about four terms,

·5· · and your opinion is that they're all indefinite?

·6· · A.· · · ·That's right.

·7· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· I have no further questions. I

·8· · will pass the witness.

·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION

10· · BY ATTORNEY VINCENT:

11· · Q.· · · ·Just one quick question, and it relates to what we

12· · just talked about earlier on in the deposition.· At least

13· · the transcript that I had, the answer was ambiguous.· So I

14· · just want to clarify.

15· · · · · · ·Apart from Exhibit 5, you did review, to prepare

16· · for your deposition, another claim construction order in

17· · another Headwater case, correct?

18· · A.· · · ·That's right.· The one I think we referred to a

19· · couple of times today.

20· · Q.· · · ·The answer that you gave earlier, the way it was

21· · transcribed was ambiguous as to whether or not you had

22· · actually looked at it or not, so I just wanted to make that

23· · clear.

24· · A.· · · ·Oh, I apologize.· I did review it.

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· And I have no questions.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 129 of 157 PageID #:

5469
·1· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· I just have a couple follow-ups.

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · FURTHER EXAMINATION

·3· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

·4· · Q.· · · ·Do you have that available to provide or no?

·5· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Object --

·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't.· I kind of -- getting

·7· · everything off my screen, and I buried it.· So I wouldn't,

·8· · you know, have anything unfair available.

·9· · BY ATTORNEY WANG:

10· · Q.· · · ·Okay.· And since your counsel, you know, refreshed

11· · your recollection that you reviewed, I think I tried to

12· · understand it, if you had any opinions about it, if you

13· · want to say anything about it.· And so apart from what

14· · we've discussed, is there anything that you want to say

15· · about it?

16· · A.· · · ·I don't think I have anything to add beyond what

17· · I've already said.

18· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Okay.· I have nothing further.

19· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Nothing further.

20· · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· Robert, I'll get your

21· · transcript order on the record, please.

22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Let's do -- what's the normal

23· · turnaround?

24· · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· Two weeks.

25· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· That's fine.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 130 of 157 PageID #:

5470
·1· · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· Did you want an

·2· · uncertified rough transcript in the interim?

·3· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Yes, please.

·4· · · · · · ·CERTIFIED STENOGRAPHER:· Anything else on the

·5· · record?

·6· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Did you want a copy of the

·7· · video as well, Robert?· I'm sorry.

·8· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Yes, please.· Sorry.

·9· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Okay.· All right.· With that,

10· · the time is -- sorry.

11· · · · · · ·Anything else before we go off the record?

12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· No.

13· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY VINCENT:· Not from me.

14· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY WANG:· Not from Headwater.

15· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· All right.· With that, the time

16· · is now 1:33 p.m.· We're going off the video record.

17· · · · · · ·(Proceedings concluded at 1:33 p.m. PDT.)

18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 131 of 157 PageID #:

5471
·1· · · · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·---o0o---

·2· · · · · · ·I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand

·3· · Reporter, Licensed by the State of California, being

·4· · empowered to administer oaths and affirmations remotely

·5· · pursuant to Section 2093(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure,

·6· · do hereby certify:

·7· · · · · · ·That the foregoing proceedings were taken remotely

·8· · before me at the time and place herein set forth; that any

·9· · witness in the foregoing proceedings, prior to testifying,

10· · were placed under oath; that a verbatim record of the

11· · proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which

12· · was thereafter transcribed under my direction; further,

13· · that the foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof.

14· · · · · · ·I further certify that I am neither financially

15· · interested in the action nor a relative or employee of any

16· · attorney or any of the parties.

17· · · · · · ·Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the

18· · original transcript of a deposition in a Federal Case,

19· · before completion of the proceedings, review of the

20· · transcript [ ] was [X] was not requested.

21· · · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my

22· · name.

23· · DATED: 9/6/2024

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·________________________________

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·JULIE RUMSEY,· CSR No. 14144

25

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 132 of 157 PageID #:

5472
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 133 of 157 PageID #:

5473
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 134 of 157 PageID #:

5474
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 135 of 157 PageID #:

5475
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 136 of 157 PageID #:

5476
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 137 of 157 PageID #:

5477
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 138 of 157 PageID #:

5478
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 139 of 157 PageID #:

5479
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 140 of 157 PageID #:

5480
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 141 of 157 PageID #:

5481
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 142 of 157 PageID #:

5482
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 143 of 157 PageID #:

5483
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 144 of 157 PageID #:

5484
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 145 of 157 PageID #:

5485
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 146 of 157 PageID #:

5486
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 147 of 157 PageID #:

5487
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 148 of 157 PageID #:

5488
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 149 of 157 PageID #:

5489
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 150 of 157 PageID #:

5490
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 151 of 157 PageID #:

5491
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 152 of 157 PageID #:

5492
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 153 of 157 PageID #:

5493
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 154 of 157 PageID #:

5494
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 155 of 157 PageID #:

5495
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 156 of 157 PageID #:

5496
Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 90-10 Filed 10/08/24 Page 157 of 157 PageID #:

5497