Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 661

Supplemental DECLARATION re 628 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Direct Infringement, 660 Reply Brief Declaration of Elizabeth Stameshkin in Support by Facebook Inc.(a Delaware corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Caponi, Steven)

EXHIBIT A

613
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEADER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

) Trial Volume 3
)
)
)
) C.A. No. 08-862-JJF-LPS
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

July 21, 2010
9:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
United States District Court Magistrate

APPEARANCES:
POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ.
-andKING
BY:
BY:
BY:

& SPALDING
PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
JAMES HANNAH, ESQ.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

Page 918

1

me, please.

2

Mr. Wiseman, you were being shown

3

the paragraph I think actually that starts with

4

the word "since"?

5

A.

Right.

6

Q.

Why is the word "metadata" used in

7

this paragraph, or what's being talked about

8

here?

9

A.

I believe the metadata referred to

10

here, it's also called pointers are in file

11

system terminology.

12

inode.

13

takes a file and is able to find it on a disk or

14

whatever storage system it uses.

15

It would be called like an

It's the means by which any file system

Q.

Is that the same metadata that we

16

have been talking about with respect to the

17

photo table?

18

A.

No, it's very different.

19

Q.

Mr. Wiseman, how many servers make

20

up the user database?

21

A.

22
23
24

I don't have an exact number, but

it's in the thousands.
Q.

How many tables are there on the

user database?

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 919

1

A.

On each database, there is several

2

hundred, I would guess.

3

MS. KEEFE:

4

Mr. Wiseman.

5
6

Thank you,

I have nothing further.
THE COURT:

Thank you.

You can

step down.

7

THE WITNESS:

8

THE COURT:

You can call your next

MS. KEEFE:

They didn't think it

9

Thank you.

witness.

10
11

would be this fast.

12

Honor, while he comes down.

13
14

Just one second, Your

THE COURT:

Fine.

Is he on his

MS. KEEFE:

He's definitely on his

way?

15
16

way.

17

the fourth floor.

18

I think he's waiting for the elevator on

THE COURT:

I apologize, ladies

19

and gentlemen, but sometimes we run into little

20

scheduling bumps.

21

I believe he's here.

22

MS. KEEFE:

He is.

Facebook would

23

like at this time to call Andrew Bosworth to the

24

stand.

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

945
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEADER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

) Trial Volume 4
)
)
)
) C.A. No. 08-862-JJF-LPS
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

July 22, 2010
9:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
United States District Court Magistrate

APPEARANCES:
POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ.
-andKING
BY:
BY:
BY:

& SPALDING
PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
JAMES HANNAH, ESQ.
Counsel for Plaintiff

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

Page 1140
1

Q.

So, in other words, if someone

2

were to -- if I update my CD collection, I just

3

can't buy new CDs and put them in there, I have

4

to do something and update my CDs?

5
6

A.

I'm not -- I don't quite follow

Q.

Well, the word updating, you're

you.

7
8

interpreting that to mean changing or altering;

9

correct?

10

A.

That's correct.

11

Q.

So adding new metadata somewhere,

12

is that altering?

13

A.

I guess it would depend.

14

sort of adding a new road to this table

15

entirely.

16

It's

another row.

I wouldn't consider an update of

17

If you were to write a missing

18

entry into an existing row, I would consider

19

that an update of that row.

20

Q.

So if all the rows are full, I

21

mean, all the columns are full on the row as

22

Facebook would do when they collect this

23

information about the photo, your understanding

24

of updating would be they have to actually

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1141
1

change what's in those columns; correct?

2

A.

That would be my -- the most

3

natural interpretation, yes, as opposed to

4

adding entirely separate rows to this table or

5

changing data in some other place entirely.

6
7

Q.

updating the metadata; right?

8
9

A.

They just say updating the

metadata.

10
11

But the claims themselves just say

Q.

And if you add a table to a

database, is that updating the database?

12

A.

If you add a table to a database,

13

you would be updating the overall database,

14

sure, not other tables in the database.

15

Q.

And so if you update -- if you

16

added metadata, you would be updating overall

17

metadata?

18

A.

I mean, again, if you sort of

19

broaden the definition of metadata and data

20

enough to be very, very inclusive, and we can

21

call, you know, a change of anything an update

22

of anything else.

23
24

Q.
metadata.

Well, no.

I'm talking about

If you have --

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

1274
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEADER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

) Trial Volume 5
)
)
)
) C.A. No. 08-862-JJF-LPS
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

Friday, July 23, 2010
9:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
United States District Court Magistrate

APPEARANCES:
POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ.
-andKING
BY:
BY:
BY:

& SPALDING
PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
JAMES HANNAH, ESQ.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

Page 1535
1

claim thirty-two vis-a-vis the iManage Reference

2

Manual?

3
4
5
6

A.

That the iManage Reference Manual

discloses what is found in claim thirty-two.
Q.

Have you heard of the term

enabling reference or enables prior art?

7

A.

Yes, I have.

8

Q.

What does that mean?

9

A.

It means that the description is

10

rich enough that one of ordinary skill in the

11

art could build a system that has those

12

characteristics.

13

Q.

As far as the claims of the 761

14

patent -- just have those in mind -- is it your

15

opinion that the iManage Reference Manual is an

16

enabling reference?

17
18

MR. ANDRE:

Objection, Your Honor.

Outside the scope of this expert's report.

19

THE COURT:

20

objection.

21

We'll note the

question in mind.

22
23
24

You may answer if you have the

THE WITNESS:

Can you read back

the question, please, or restate the question.
BY MS. KEEFE:

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1536
1
2

Q.

Do you believe that the iManage

Reference Manual is an enabling reference?

3

A.

Yes, I do.

4

Q.

Can you pull up the front page of

5

the patent and pull up the references cited

6

section, please.

I think we're missing one from

7

the very bottom.

The references cited are in

8

two places.

9
10

Dr. Greenberg, do you see the
iManage Reference Manual listed here?

11

A.

No, I do not.

12

Q.

So in conclusion, regarding the

13

prior art, iManage Reference Manual, what is

14

your opinion regarding the asserted claims of

15

the 761 patent?

16

A.

So my opinion is that the iManage

17

Reference Manual discloses each and every

18

element of all of the certified claims of the

19

761 patent.

20

Q.

21

And what does that mean for

validity of the 761 claims?

22

A.

It means that the patent is

23

invalid.

The ideas were expressed in this

24

publication well before the 761 patent was

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1613
1
2
3

Let's hear from Mr. Andre, and
then I want to give Facebook some time.
MR. ANDRE:

Your Honor, on the

4

contributory infringement, it's a pretty

5

standard instruction.

6

extraordinary about the points, puts out the

7

elements as set forth, looks like Facebook wants

8

to insert the statute into the instruction to

9

some degree, and I don't think that's necessary

10
11

I don't see anything

or appropriate at this point.
I don't see the big issue here

12

because the Thrasher case has come out and

13

determined that any type of contributory

14

infringement to the patent requires a product in

15

the stream of commerce, and then you have three

16

elements set for most part.

17

THE COURT:

18

Facebook at this point.

19

any of the issues that have been raised or

20

others if you think there are others that are

21

important, and basically we have up to

22

twenty minutes because I do want to leave the

23

last five minutes to hear from Leader.

24

Let me turn it over to
Feel free to address

MR. WEINSTEIN:

There's only two

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1614
1

issues to address.

2

jury instruction, 3.4.

3

The most critical ones on

Your Honor, I'd like to hand up a

4

portion of some of the transcript from the trial

5

to illustrate why we need an instruction that

6

"wherein" does not mean when.

7

THE COURT:

You've already cited

8

pretty extensively in your support, which we

9

looked at, so in the spirit of compromise,

10

construing at this late moment the term

11

"wherein" to mean in which, which has been

12

agreed to by Leader, is not satisfactory to you?

13

MR. WEINSTEIN:

It isn't, Your

14

Honor.

The problem with in which, Your Honor,

15

they're going to make the exact, same argument

16

what I heard today, is they think this is a

17

factual issue to go to the jury.

18

When I read the '02 Micro case

19

last night, I was haunted how similar that case

20

is to this.

21

there.

22

cross-examined witnesses on what do you think

23

this term means.

24

There was a claim term only if like

This case, they presented witnesses and

What ultimately came down and the

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1615
1

Court decided, he was going to send it to the

2

jury.

3

present a fundamental dispute regarding the

4

scope of a claim term, it is the Court's duty to

5

resolve it.

The federal circuit said when the parties

6

The fundamental dispute is

7

regarding does "wherein" mean when, or does the

8

claim require a dynamic element, which means you

9

look to the proceeding claim element?

That's a

10

dispute Your Honor needs to resolve as a matter

11

of law.

12

THE COURT:

Help me, though, why I

13

haven't resolve it by construing "wherein" to

14

mean in which, and you all make your arguments

15

or don't.

16

construction as a matter of law.

17

told they have to follow my claim construction.

18

How is that any different than all the other

19

claim construction issues?

You're stuck with the Court's claim

20

MR. WEINSTEIN:

The jury is

Ultimately let's

21

say the construction comes in in which you can

22

say at which point.

23

definitions.

24

between two clauses.

There's lots of different

Ultimately wherein is a connecter

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1616
1

The question is, does it connote a

2

temporal sequence like something happens when

3

the user accesses the data from the second

4

context?

That's the argument.

5

They're taking the update of

6

method to metadata can happen when the user

7

accesses data.

8

question.

9

Farnan's order.

We think it's been resolved by Judge

10
11

THE COURT:

MR. WEINSTEIN:

It's resolved in

his order.

14
15

Where is it resolved

in his order?

12
13

That's a claim construction

THE COURT:

Why do I even need to

define wherein if dynamically has done it?

16

MR. WEINSTEIN:

The only reason we

17

need to define it, Leader is making these

18

arguments.

19

evidence before witnesses and arguing the

20

meaning of claim terms, which is the exclusive

21

province of Your Honor.

22

arguments in closing as to what ultimately the

23

legal implication of wherein is.

24

something that should not go to the jury.

They're putting prosecution history

There's going to be

That's

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1617
1

THE COURT:

And your paragraph on

2

prosecution history that you propose, that does

3

not take care of your problem if I were to keep

4

that in as well as your wherein construction?

5

MR. WEINSTEIN:

The wherein

6

construction would not do it.

7

history would help, but ultimately, Your Honor

8

has to decide whether or not the claims are

9

satisfied with dynamically updating the metadata

10

The prosecution

when user accesses.

11

If that issue is not resolved,

12

ultimately instituting "wherein" as some

13

connecter is not going to stop the arguments

14

from being made that are legal in nature.

15

THE COURT:

If I were to add line

16

five, which claims which would I put the term

17

"wherein" means in which.

18

In which claims, what number claims, would I

19

write in?

20

Perhaps, not when.

MR. WEINSTEIN:

Your Honor, the

21

claims that have the wherein clause are one,

22

nine, and four also, and --

23
24

MR. HANNAH:

All the dependent

claims have wherein as well.

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1618
1

MR. WEINSTEIN:

I don't think

2

that's right, but I know seven has wherein in

3

it.

4
5

The claims where it really matters
is one, nine, and twenty-three.

6

Twenty-one, very interestingly,

7

Your Honor doesn't use the word "wherein."

8

uses the term "such that," and that is something

9

that we agreed to, is to construe "wherein" to

10

mean "such that," which is consistent with

11

what's in claim twenty-one.

12

It

synonym that we think is clearer.

13

THE COURT:

That's another

Okay.

Certainly this

14

is an important issue.

15

assume there's probably another you want to

16

address.

17

I agree with that, but I

MR. WEINSTEIN:

On Mr. Lamb's

18

testimony, the only thing we wanted was to say

19

two points.

20

One is, a written correction to

21

the deposition does not erase the witness's

22

prior answer, and the jury is free to consider

23

the changes in any way they see fit, the same

24

way they would judge any issue of credibility.

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1634
1

parties agree to was a commercial success

2

stipulation, but they have not reached agreement

3

on that as well.

4

those to you as soon -- we'll keep working this

5

weekend an hopefully get them to you --

6

So those are the -- we can get

THE COURT:

Right.

So on all of

7

those issues, the limiting instructions and

8

which I think are limited to nine topics that

9

you just mentioned.

10

MR. ANDRE:

Yeah.

11

THE COURT:

I do want to see what

12

the parties propose, what their positions are,

13

and let's say by noon tomorrow.

14

follow this weekend the procedures we did last

15

week where I send -- if it's not under seal, go

16

ahead and do ECF.

17

We're going to

We can pull it off of ECF.

But if any portion of it is under

18

seal, email it to Mr. Golden and he'll get it to

19

the rest of us.

20
21
22

MR. ANDRE:

Mr. Rovner will take

care of the rest.
THE COURT:

Before you sit down,

23

whoever wants to address it on the 3.4 on this,

24

you know, is it enough for me to construe

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1635
1

wherein as in which and not go the extra mile

2

and say not when?

3

Mr. Weinstein, not that I don't

4

enjoy all my time with you, but I don't want to

5

sign up automatically for redoing this trial.

6

MR. ANDRE:

Your Honor, the issue

7

of claim construction should have been brought

8

up a long time ago, if they want to bring it up.

9

The fact of the matter, experts

10

have been interpreting this how they've been

11

interpreting it.

12

Greenberg, has interpreted is as a consequence.

13

That's how he termed wherein.

14

The expert on the stand, Dr.

Dr. Vigna determined it as in

15

which.

16

when is a negative limitation.

17

I don't think, you know, if you say not

THE COURT:

Let's be clear.

If I

18

don't say not when, you're going to argue when.

19

They're going to argue not when.

20

MR. ANDRE:

Well --

21

THE COURT:

And you don't think

22

that means we're all going to get reversed the

23

minute we get to the Federal Circuit?

24

MR. ANDRE:

Well, I'm not going to

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Page 1636
1

argue when.

2

I'm arguing which.
That's been our position

3

throughout this entire case.

It is in which.

4

That's the dictionary's definition of the word.

5

So we think, as Mr. Hannah said,

6

the dynamically is a functional language, not

7

pure grammatical and temporal in that way.

8

we're very confident that that's not going to be

9

an issue.

10

So

But if they start arguing, you

11

know, not thereafter, or as a consequence or

12

something along those lines like they had been,

13

their other expert, Dr. Kearns, did the same

14

thing.

15

thereafter?

I asked him, I said, You mean

16

He said, Yeah, afterwards.

So

17

everybody has had a different definition.

18

you want to give a proper definition, give the

19

proper definition.

20

If

If you want to interpret, say what

21

it's not, we should also put some other things

22

what it's not as well as what your experts have

23

proposed.

24

then it should not say it's not thereafter or

If you want to say it's not when,

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801

1643
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

LEADER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

) Trial Day 6
)
)
)
) C.A. No. 08-862-JJF-LPS
)
)
)
)
)
)

Monday, July 26, 2010
9:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
United States District Court Magistrate

APPEARANCES:

POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON, LLP
BY: PHILIP A. ROVNER, ESQ.
-andKING
BY:
BY:
BY:

& SPALDING
PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
JAMES HANNAH, ESQ.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1645
1

THE CLERK:

All rise.

2

THE COURT:

Good morning,

3

everyone.

4

(Everyone said, Good morning.)

5

THE CLERK:

Please be seated.

6

THE COURT:

Welcome to week two.

7

All right.

8
9

Let's begin with developments over
the weekend.

I have seen and reviewed and am

10

prepared to rule on Facebook's motion for a

11

mistrial, which asks in the alternative for a

12

limiting instruction.

13

Leader's questioning of Professor Greenberg last

14

Friday afternoon as to whether the '761 examiner

15

considered the Swartz patent.

All of which arises from

16

Excuse me.

I ran in too quickly.

17

Such questioning by Mr. Andre was

18

inappropriate due to my in limine ruling.

19

contrast, on direct, Facebook stayed

20

appropriately within the narrow scope of my

21

ruling, elicited only disputed evidence that

22

Swartz is not mentioned on the face of the '761

23

patent.

24

By

It is also true that the '761 is

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1646
1

in re-exam in part as a result of the PTO's

2

finding that Swartz was not considered during

3

prosecution of the '761.

4

And further, I have ruled and I

5

adhere to these rulings that the fact of the

6

re-exam and whether there's similarities between

7

the prior art relied on by Facebook in this

8

case, and the prior art considered by the PTO

9

during prosecution of the '761 patent are not

10

relevant to this trial.

11

Therefore, this is not a matter on

12

which the jury should be permitted to draw what

13

might otherwise seems to be reasonable

14

inferences that the examiner considered Swartz

15

since she was also the examiner of Swartz.

16

But, however, I'm not going to

17

permit the parties to get into the re-examine.

18

We're not going to open up the door and get into

19

how many patents Ms. Mizrahi may have examined

20

or what else she was doing.

21

Instead there's going to be no

22

more questioning that relates in any way to what

23

the PTO considered or did not consider.

24

I'm denying the motion for a

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1647
1

mistrial because I think while there was

2

prejudice to Facebook, I think it is curable in

3

other ways short of the extraordinary remedy of

4

a mistrial, and in particular through jury

5

instructions and special interrogatories.

6

Leader, of course, claims that

7

it's prejudiced by Facebook's narrow questioning

8

of Greenberg about whether Swartz is listed on

9

the face of the '761 patent, but I absolutely

10

reject Leader's position.

11

Facebook's questioning was entirely consistent

12

with my prior rulings.

13

Again, as I said,

Leader did not object during the

14

examination of -- well, even prior Leader, did

15

not object to Facebook giving the jury binder to

16

the jury which contained the Swartz patent.

17

Leader did not object to Facebook displaying the

18

Swartz patent for the jury.

19

Leader did not object to Facebook

20

blowing up the portion of the -- I'm sorry, the

21

Swartz patent that evidently shows the Swartz

22

examiner's name.

23
24

Leader did not object to
Facebook's questions, objections which I would

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1709
1

THE COURT:

I'm not going to

2

strike it, but let's move on.

3

the motion, or denying the motion to strike.

4

MS. KEEFE:

5

Q.

Thank you.

BY MS. KEEFE:

6

I'm overruling

Also with respect to the iManage

7

DeskSite user reference manual, Dr. Greenberg,

8

when you were writing your report, did the copy

9

of the manual that you were using contain a

10

confidentiality designation?

11

A.

No.

I have it right in front of

12

me, this is an exact copy used, and it did not

13

have that confidentiality designation.

14
15

MS. KEEFE:

Your Honor, at this

time we would move into evidence Exhibit 925E.

16

MR. ANDRE:

Objection, Your Honor.

17

This is not the document that he has testified

18

to.

19
20

THE COURT:
objection.

I'm overruling the

It's admitted.

21

MS. KEEFE:

22

Nothing further, Dr. Greenberg.

23
24

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you.
THE WITNESS:

Thank you very much.

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1792
1

cited as prior art.

2

Q.

Let's turn to the prior art.

3

Let's go to the iManage User Reference Manual,

4

which is DTX 1010.

5

understanding of what this user reference manual

6

is?

7

A.

Now, what is your

Well, it's a manual intended for

8

end users to -- you know, people who want to use

9

the iManage DeskSite system would refer to this

10
11
12
13

to figure out, you know, how to use it.
Q.

And does it actually tell you how

to build the iManage software?
A.

Well, no, not at all.

Actually

14

it's as if, you know, we all have owners manuals

15

for our cars that tell you, Here's how you

16

operate the automatic transmission.

17

example, that tells me absolutely nothing about

18

how to build an automatic transmission.

19

For

It's just -- it just doesn't

20

disclose anything about that.

21

way a user manual might tell me how to engage

22

the functionality of the software, but it

23

doesn't tell me anything about how to build it.

24

Q.

All right.

So in the same

And within the four

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1793
1

corners of this document we've marked as DTX

2

1010, does it give you any information for one

3

of ordinary skill in the art to be able to build

4

the software in all the components that it might

5

reference?

6

A.

No, it doesn't.

It doesn't say

7

anything about how it's designed, what the

8

structure looks like.

9

use it once it's there.

10

Q.

It simply tells us how to

Do you know whether this iManage

11

manual, which is marked as DTX 1010 whether that

12

was publicly available in 2001 or 2002?

13

A.

I have no idea.

14

Q.

Now, do you have an opinion as to

15

whether the iManage User Reference Manual is

16

prior art to the '761 patent?

17

A.

Yeah.

Because it doesn't

18

disclose, you know, how to make and use this

19

invention, I would say it's not prior art.

20

doesn't qualify as prior art.

21

Q.

It

What is the difference between the

22

iManage User Manual and the information

23

disclosed within the four corners of that

24

document and the invention of the '761 patent?

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]

1847
1

reasons that you have already provided today; is

2

that right?

3

A.

Exactly.

4

Q.

In your opinion, does the

5

invention of the '761 patent address a long-felt

6

but unresolved need in the industry?

7

A.

I think it does.

I mean, this

8

2002 time frame was right at the end of the

9

period where I was doing research in

10

collaboration technology at Bell Labs.

11

trying to introduce and develop some

12

technologies to help distribute teams and share

13

documents and it was a huge problem.

14

think others were suffering from very similar

15

kinds of problems trying to figure out how to

16

get global distributed teams to share, for

17

example.

18

We were

And I

And, again, in terms of

19

obviousness, I think if, you know, a solution to

20

that had been obvious, someone would have come

21

up with it some time ago.

22

Q.

In your opinion, based on the

23

techniques that were known around 2002, did

24

those techniques teach a way from the invention

Hawkins Reporting Service
715 North King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
[phone] FAX [phone]