Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 507

RESPONSE in Opposition re 460 MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay MOTION in Limine Number 1 (Uncharted Prior Art References): Motion to Preclude Defendants' Reliance on or Reference to Uncharted Prior Art References (EZ Reader Manual and CBR Express Manuals) and Hearsay filed by AOL, LLC., Google Inc., Yahoo!, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Sistos Decl. ISO Defendants' Response, # 2 Branting Decl ISO Defendants' Response, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit)(Sistos, Antonio)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 507 Att. 9

EXHIBIT E

Dockets.Justia.com

Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC F/K/A POLARIS IP, LLC Plaintiff

- vs -

2:07-CV-371-TJW-CE

GOOGLE, INC., ET AL Defendants

Deposition of AMY RICE taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at the Ethan Allen Hotel, 21 Lake Avenue Extension, Danbury, Connecticut, before Meghan M. English, LSR, a Licensed Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the State of Connecticut on Friday, March 19, 2010, at 9:09 a.m.

MEGHAN M. ENGLISH, LSR LSR NO. 211

Job No: 244411

Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658 973-410-4040

Oc536b3c-834e-4a63 -ab6a -537claad058b

Page 26

Page 28 1 To the extent your response would require you

1 issued? 2 Do you understand that? 3 MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't really know how to _5 answer that. 6 BY MR. PERLSON: 7 Q What is the EZ Reader? 8 A The EZ Reader was a revolutionary computer 9 program.. 10 Q Who developed the EZ Reader? 11 A Myself and Julie Hsu. 12 Q Anyone else? 13 A No. 14 Q What about Anthony Angotti? 15 A No. 16 Q Rosanna Piccolo? 17 A No. 18 Q Fred Cohen? 19 A Hell, no. 20 Q You say -- you seem very emphatic for the 21 last three. Why is it that you don't think Miss Piccolo was 22 part of the development of the EZ Reader? 23 A Because she didn't develop it. 24 Q The same is true for Mr. Angotti and 25 Mr. Cohen?
Page 27

2 to divulge a privileged communication, I 3 would instruct you not to answer. 4 BY MR. PERLSON: 5 Q Okay. So you can't answer the question 6 without revealing an attorney/client communication? 7 A Right. Right. 8 Q Did you ever -9 A I am new to this. I don't understand all the 10 legal technicalities around what we are doing, so... 11 Q I understand. And did you ever -- you know, 12 if Mr. Pridham wants to object, he can do so; but did you 13 ever tell anyone that you did not think that Ms. Piccolo was 14 an inventor of the '947 patent?
15 16 MR. PRIDHAM: Same objection. Same instruction.

17 BY MR. PERLSON: 18 Q And same for Mr. Cohen? 19 MR. PRIDHAM: Same objection. 20 BY MR. PERLSON: 21 Q So do you think -- so did Mr. Angotti 22 contribute anything to the development of the EZ Reader? 23 Can you explain in what context that would A 24 be? What does contribute mean? 25 Q I don't know that I can explain it any better
Page 29

A Yeah. I don't even know Fred Cohen. Q And do you know why Mr. Angotti was listed as an inventor of the '947 patent? A No. Q Do you think that Mr. Angotti was an inventor ofthe'947 patent? MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 BY MR. PERLSON: Q 10 What about Miss Piccolo, do you think that 11 Miss Piccolo was an inventor of the'947 patent? 12 MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 BY MR. PERLSON: 15 Q And what about Mr. Cohen, do you believe that 16 Mr. Cohen was an inventor of the '947 patent? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you ever tell anyone that you thought 19 that Mr. Angotti was not an inventor of the '947 patent? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And who did you tell? 22 A David. 23 MR. PRIDHAM: Let me just, if I can, get 24 my objections in before you respond. 1 am 25 going to object on the basis of privilege.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 than the way I phrased it. 2 A Contribute. He funded our project at Chase. 3 Q Beyond that? 4 A He instructed us to put Chase logos on 5 everything. 6 Q Beyond that? 7 A No. 8 Q What about Ms. Piccolo, did she contribute 9 anything to development of the EZ Reader? 10 A She tested the EZ Reader. 11 Q Anything beyond that? 12 A Not that I am aware. 13 Q And when did she test the EZ Reader? 14 A It was a long process. Q 15 Do you have any idea when it started? 16 A Was it October or November? I get all the 17 years mixed up. Wait. '95, 1995. 18 Q And can you describe for me what the testing 19 involved? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Please do so. 22 A Let me get this all. The testing involved
23 taking electronic mail communications sent to Chase to their 24 direct banking website and loading those into a framework 25 that processed them.

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Veritext Corporate Services 800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Oc536b3c - 834e-4a63-ab6a - 537claad058b

Page 30 1 2 3 Q Okay. What does process them mean? A Interpret and decide what to do with the communication. 1 2

Page 32 Q That was going to be my next question. When were you off the project?

3 A I think it was in my affidavit. I am not 4 sure. It was March or April, maybe May. March. I think it 5 process, was the EZ Reader used to actually respond to 5 was April of -- I guess it would be'95, '96. I can't 6 customer inquiries? 6- remember what year. 7 7 A No. Q If Mr. Angotti testified that the EZ Reader 8 Q 8 was in fact used to respond to e-mails of actual customers, So what was done after the processing, as you 9 described it? 9 would you have any reason to dispute that? 10 A 10 MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. Refinement of the application to do what 11 11 Chase wanted it to do. THE WITNESS: I don't believe 12 Q 12 Okay. Mr. Angotti in any way. 13 13 BY MR. PERLSON: A Answer or refer to a human. 14 14 Q Q So it wasn't used to answer the actual What do you mean? 15 e-mails, is that what you're saying, as part of the testing? 15 A He had his own agenda. 16 16 Q What was his agenda? MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. 17 A I would rather not say. THE WITNESS: Never live, no. It was -- 17 18 18 Q Well, one of the -as part of testing, we would look at the 19 19 A I mean , it's just an opinion. results but never to a customer. It was all 20 Q 20 under development at the time. Why don't you tell me the opinion. 21 21 BY MR. PERLSON: A I just think he was trying to make a big deal 22 Q And do you know whether the EZ Reader was 22 out of what he saw as --everyone around the project saw as -23 used to actually respond to live a-mails -- I am sorry, to 2 3 really exciting development, and he wanted it to -- claim it I 24 e-mails from live customers? 24 as his own because of --you know, internal corporate 25 25 politics. MR. PRIDHAM: Can you repeat that

4

Q

And so was the -- as part of this testing

Page 31 1
2 3

Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q What about Ms. Piccolo, if she testified that EZ Reader was used to respond to e-mails from live customers, would you have any reason to dispute that? MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. THE WITNESS: I can't think of one. I don't know why she would say that either. BY MR. PERLSON: Q Do you believe Ms. Piccolo had an agenda like Mr. Angotti?

question, please.
(Whereupon the prior question was read by the court reporter.)

4 MR. PRIDHAM: Object to form. 5 THE WITNESS: As far as I know, it was 6 never used for that. 7 BY MR. PERLSON: 8 Q And you say as far as you know. What -- who 9 would know other than you whether it was actually used to 10 respond to a-mails from live customers? 11 A I don't know. 12 Q Would -- could the people at Chase know that? 13 A I don't know. I suppose. As far as I know, 14 it never was used because there was a big upheaval when 15 Chemical Bank comes in. 16 Q Okay. Can you describe -- what do you mean 17 big upheaval regarding Chemical Bank? 18 A Well, I got basically taken off the project 19 before testing was complete. And Chemical Bank was set to 20 merge with Chase Manhattan's IT department. And so there 21 was a lot of questioning about what we were doing, and we 22 pretty much came to a standstill in testing the application. 23 Q And do you recall the timing of that? 24 A No. I can tell you when I was off the 25 project.

10 A No. 11 Q Did you ever find Ms. Piccolo to be 12 untruthful, in your experience with her?
13 A No. 14 Q Do you recall that at -- well, before I go on 15 to that, you had mentioned that the EZ Reader was
16 revolutionary.

j' z'

17

What did you mean by that?

18 A It -- there was no other application that we 19 knew of that could perform that function. 20 Q And what function are you referring to? 21 Automatic interpretation and routing of A 22 electronic e-mail, as well as response. 23 Q Now, one of the aspects of the EZ Reader was 24 rule-based reasoning; is that correct? 25 A Yes.

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Veritext Corporate Services 800-567-8658
973-410-4040

Oc536b3c-834e-4a63 - ab6a-537claadO58b

Page 250
1

2
3

CERTIFICATE

4 I hereby certify that I am a Notary Public, in and 5 for the State of Connecticut, duly commissioned and 6 qualified to administer oaths. 7 I further certify that the deponent named in the 8 foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn, and thereupon 9 testified as appears in the foregoing deposition; that said 10 deposition was taken by me stenographically in the presence 11 of counsel and reduced to typewriting under my direction, 12 and the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the
13 testimony.

14 I further certify that I am neither of counsel nor 15 attorney to either of the parties to said suit, nor am I an 16 employee of either party to said suit, nor of either counsel 17 in said suit, nor am I interested in the outcome of said
18 cause.

19 Witness my hand as Notary Public the _27th_ day 20 of -March, 2010.
21 22

23
24

MEGHAN M. ENGLISH, LSR Notary Public

LSR NO. 211 25 M Commission Expires October 31 , 2010
Page 251 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS

2 3 4 5
6

PAGE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PERLSON ....................4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PRIDHAM ...................242 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PERLSON ................244
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

7 8 9

RICE PAGE 1, Consulting agreement Merchant & Gould .............6 2, Patent Declaration ...............................62

10 3, Patent Application ...............................76

11 4, Declaration of Amy Rice .........................129
12 5, Automatic Message Interpretation and Routing

13 System .............................................196 14 6, Compilation exhibit - e-mails ................... 198 15 7, PowerPoint Presentation Brightware ..............223 16 8, E-mail dated March 29, 1996 .....................227 17 9, Knowledge Transfer Plan for Knowledge-Based 18 Systems ................... ......................... 236
19

s ,

20 (Original Exhibits attached to Original Transcript.)
21 22 23 24 25

64 (Pages 250 to 251)

Veritext Corporate Services 800-567-8658 973-410-4040
Oc536b3c-834e-4a63- ab6a -537c1aad058b