Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,

Filing 47

MOTION to Compel 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM JARG CORPORATION AND NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY by Google, Inc.,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Boston Globe article, # 2 Exhibit B - Reuters article, # 3 Exhibit C - Amended Notice of Deposition to Jarg, # 4 Exhibit D - Amended Notice of Deposition to NU, # 5 Exhibit E - Jarg Objs to Google 30b6 Not, # 6 Exhibit F - NU Objs to Google 30b6 Not, # 7 Exhibit G - NU and Jarg Initial Disclosures, # 8 Exhibit H - Order Denying MyMail Mot for PO and Granting AOL Mot to Compel, # 9 Exhibit I - Amended Docket Control Order, # 10 Exhibit J - Jarg Notice of Disclosures, # 11 Exhibit K - D195 Order Re Mass Eng v Ergotron, # 12 Exhibit L - Pirri Depo Transcript, # 13 Exhibit M - Belanger Depo Transcript, # 14 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Wolff, Jason)

Deposition of ANTHONY PIRRI
Date: September 23, 2008 Volume: 1 Case: NORTHEASTERN/JARG v. GOOGLE

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES Phone: [phone] [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Internet: www.iptranscripts.com

Page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Volume 1, Pages 1 - 69 Exhibits: 1 - 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION __________________________ NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY and JARG CORP., Plaintiffs,

8 v. 9 GOOGLE, INC., 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Defendant. __________________________ RULE 26 and RULE 30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, ANTHONY N. PIRRI, designee, called by counsel for the Defendant, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Dana Welch, CSR, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public, in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Fish & Richardson, P.C., 225 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on September 23, 2008, commencing at 9:11 a.m. C.A. No. 2:07-CV-486 (TJW)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 2

Page 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

APPEARANCES: For the Defendant: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, California 92130 858.678.5070 Fax: [phone] [e-mail] By: Jason W. Wolff, Esq. For the Plaintiffs: VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746-7568 512.542.8929 Fax: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] By: Stephen Charles Stout, Ph.D., Esq. and Michael A. Valek, Esq. Also Present: Karen Abbott, Esq. Northeastern University Assistant University Counsel Tom Tracy, Videographer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 3

INDEX (continued) EXHIBITS MARKED NO. DESCRIPTION: PAGE Exhibit 7, "Web Search for a Planet: The 35 Google Cluster Architecture" Exhibit 8, U.S. Patent No. 5,694,593 42 QUESTIONS Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER to witness 18 to witness 26 to witness 33 to witness 37 to witness 48 to witness 49 to witness 49 to witness 60 to witness 61

Exhibits appended to transcript.

Page 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

INDEX WITNESS: ANTHONY N. PIRRI EXAMINATION: PAGE: BY MR. WOLFF 6 BY MR. STOUT 58 BY MR. WOLFF 59 EXHIBITS MARKED: NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE: Exhibit 1, Defendant Google Inc.'s Amended 10 Notice of Deposition to Plaintiff Northeastern University Exhibit 2, Complaint for Damages and 13 Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement Exhibit 3, Disclosure of the Asserted 19 Claims and Infringement Contentions Exhibit 4, Exhibit A 19 Exhibit 5, Appendix M, Patent Rules 22 Exhibit 6, "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale 35 Hypertextual Web Search Engine" --- index continued ---

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROCEEDINGS THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the video operator, Tom Tracy, of Budd Legal Video, Boston. Today's date is September 23rd, 2008. The time is 9:11 a.m. We are here at the offices of Fish & Richardson, located in Boston, Massachusetts, to take the videotaped deposition of Anthony Pirri, 30(b)(6) representative of JRG Corporation in the matter of Northeastern University and JRG or Jarg Corporation versus Google, Incorporated in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-486 (TJW). Would counsel please voice identify yourselves and state whom you represent. MR. STOUT: My name is Stephen Stout. I'm counsel for the plaintiffs, Northeastern University and Jarg. And before we get started, I want to make sure we correct this: Mr. Pirri is actually representing Northeastern University, not Jarg. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Sorry about that. So just make a correction that Anthony
2 (Pages 2 to 5)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 6

Page 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Pirri is representing Northeastern University. MR. WOLFF: Also present with you... MR. STOUT: Also present with me is Michael Valek and Karen Abbott with the University Counsel's Office. MR. WOLFF: Jason Wolff for Fish & Richardson San Diego, representing defendant Google, Inc. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And would the court reporter please swear in the witness. ANTHONY N. PIRRI, having been satisfactorily identified by the production of his driver's license, and duly sworn by the Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Good morning -A. Good morning. Q. -- Mr. Pirri. I have a little bit of a -I don't mean to snap on my microphone. Sorry. I have a little bit of a cold I picked up on the plane over, so if you can't understand me at any time, please stop me and ask me to ask the question again.
Page 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you are generally required to answer the question. We try not to talk over each other so that the reporter can get down all of our exchanges. I will do my best to take a break every hour or so. If you need a break more frequently than that or if for any reason you need to take a break, just let me know. There are obviously refreshments in the back as I referred to earlier. But I do ask that before we take a break, we finish the answer to any question that's pending. Is that all right? A. Yes. Q. Understood? A. Yes. Q. Is there any reason you can't give me your best testimony today? A. No. Q. All right. What is your present role at the university? A. I am director of the division of technology transfer at Northeastern University. Q. Okay. How long have you been involved or been associated with the university? A. It will be ten years on July 1st of 2009. Q. Okay. And what is your relationship to
Page 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Could you please state your address for the record. A. My address is 26 Alcott Way, North Andover, Massachusetts. Q. All right. Have you ever been deposed before? A. Yes. Q. How many times? A. Once. Q. And in what context was that deposition? A. I was a third-party to -- the university was a third-party to a lawsuit between two California companies, and I was asked to basically discuss a license arrangement that we had with one of the parties. Q. All right. I'll go over the format of the deposition real quickly. I'm sure your counsel has probably explained some of that to you. I will ask you questions. I will assume if you answer the questions that you've understood the questions. If you have any questions or concerns about the question, please correct me. Your attorney will obviously object to some of the questions I will ask. Unless he's instructing you not to answer based on privilege,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

this case? A. Jarg is a small company that's spun out of the university and has licensed technology that was developed at the university. Q. Okay. Is Jarg the exclusive licensee of that technology? A. That's correct. Q. How long have you been involved in this case? A. Since early 2007. Q. That's you personally or the university? A. That is both. Q. Did you know anything about this case prior to September 2007? A. Not September. Early 2007. Q. I'm sorry. Approximately when in 2007? A. I would guess the winter of 2007 is when we first were contacted by Jarg. Q. The winter of 2007? A. Yeah. Q. I thought you said early 2007. A. Well, January 2007. Q. Oh, right. I understand. A. January -- winter to early spring, in that time frame.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 10

Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. Do you have personal knowledge of the complaint that's been served in this case? A. I have the knowledge that was provided in -- do you have copies of the documents? There was a complaint document and infringement document. Q. Yes. I do have both of those. A. Can I -- I can refer to those documents. Q. All right. Well, I'll just ask these questions and then we'll get to the documents. A. Okay. Q. And you have personal knowledge of the contentions as well; is that correct? A. Yes. MR. WOLFF: I will have the reporter mark as Exhibit 1, Google's Amended Notice of Deposition to Plaintiff Northeastern University. (Exhibit 1, Defendant Google Inc.'s Amended Notice of Deposition to Plaintiff Northeastern University, marked for identification.) BY MR. WOLFF: Q. And if you could refer to that and see if -- tell me if you've read that prior to your deposition.
Page 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. How long did you meet with your counsel? A. The afternoon yesterday, several hours. Q. Beyond the complaint and the contentions, were there any other documents you referred to in your preparation? A. No. Q. No papers, no other materials related to the suit? A. No. Q. Have you read the patent? A. Yes. Q. Have you read the file history? A. I have read the patent. Q. Okay. Have you read the Google papers referred to in the infringement contentions? A. I have only seen what's in the public information issued by Google. I've basically seen what's on the Web about Google and their history, and also seen what's in the documents that we talked about that was prepared by counsel. Q. Okay. But did you see the papers that are referred to in those infringement contentions? A. No.

Page 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I've seen it, yes. Q. If you will turn to the Schedule A, in fact, it's the last page, "Deposition Topics." Did you read these deposition topics prior to your deposition? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you understand these deposition topics? A. Yes. Q. Are you prepared to answer questions as to these deposition topics? A. Yes. Q. All right. What did you do to prepare your answers to these topics? A. We met yesterday with the two attorneys from Vinson & Elkins, and they basically presented to me this document, the infringement contentions document, and also the -- the document that basically is the complaint. Q. All right. A. Do you have those documents? Q. I do have those documents. A. May I see those documents also? Q. I will enter those as exhibits shortly. A. Thank you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(Exhibit 2, Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief for Patent Infringement, marked for identification.) BY MR. WOLFF: Q. I will hand you Exhibit 2. This is Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief. Now, is this one of the documents you referred to -A. Yes. Q. -- examining in your preparation? A. Yes. Q. Did the university review this complaint before it was filed? A. No. Q. So when -A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Pardon? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. All right. When did you first see the complaint or the university first see the complaint? A. I saw this yesterday. Q. Okay. And you hadn't seen the complaint prior to yesterday?
4 (Pages 10 to 13)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 14

Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. No. Q. And had anybody at the university seen the complaint prior to yesterday? A. I don't know. Q. That is one of the topics, though, right, topic one in the deposition notice, which is Exhibit 1. A. You mean, "This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States"? Q. No. The last page of Exhibit 1: "The basis and foundation for Northeastern's contentions" -A. I'm sorry. "In paragraphs 26 to 29." Well, Northeastern believes that Google has directly and/or indirectly infringed upon one or more claims of the '593 patent, and enlisted counsel from Vinson & Elkins and let -- them being experts, and elicited their expertise since we're not attorneys at the university. I'm not an attorney; I'm an engineer. And we relied upon them to prepare the documents to basically enforce our claims. Q. All right. But you didn't see the complaint before it was filed.
Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

subsequently prepared by Jarg in addition to the Northeastern patent that was licensed to Jarg. Q. My question is -A. If that's what your question is. Q. -- are there products that you're familiar with that are Jarg's products that are practicing the patents at issue in this case? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Repeat the question again. Are there -Q. All right. A. Try it again. Q. Are there products of Jarg's that you are familiar with that are practicing the patent in suit? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. They have a search engine product -Q. All right. A. -- that I am minimally aware of. Remember, all of this took place before our office was formed, before I joined the university, the license took place at that point. Q. All right. And is that product still offered for sale? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I believe so.
Page 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. No. MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. And part of the relief that's requested in the complaint is an injunction against Google; is that correct? MR. STOUT: Objection as to form. A. Yes. I think that's in the title: Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief. Q. What is the basis for your request for injunctive relief? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. The basis for injunctive relief is as it says here, Google makes, uses, imports, sells and/or offers for sale search engine services and systems that infringe upon the claims of the '593 patent and continue to infringe upon the patent. Q. And is Northeastern practicing the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. Northeastern has licensed the patent to Jarg, so Jarg is practicing the patent. Q. All right. And are you familiar with the Jarg products that actually practice the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I know there are patents that were

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. And how do you know this information about Jarg? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. My information about Jarg comes from their annual meeting notices and any additional information that I've had in a couple of meetings that I've had with Michael Belanger, who is the present CEO of Jarg. Q. Okay. Does the university participate in the annual meetings of Jarg? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. We are invited. Q. And do you receive papers or other materials for these annual meetings? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. We receive notification of the meetings and an invitation to attend the meetings as a shareholder of Jarg; and unfortunately, I've not been able to attend any of the meetings. Q. Okay. And are you the person that would typically receive those materials? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I receive the notices. Q. All right. So did Northeastern test any Google products prior to filing the complaint?
5 (Pages 14 to 17)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 18

Page 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Northeastern itself has done no tests on Google products. Q. Okay. So without having done any tests, what was the basis of filing the complaint? A. I think it's spelled out in the document as prepared by our attorneys, who have had the expertise to file a document, which you have not given me yet, the infringement contentions document. Q. All right. But I'm asking about the complaint because that document existed after the complaint was filed. MR. STOUT: Object to the extent your question calls for privileged communications between Northeastern and its counsel. MR. WOLFF: I'm asking about the factual basis. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. What was the basis for the complaint before it was filed? MR. STOUT: Renew my objection. A. On the advice of counsel, I will not respond to the question. Q. All right. So you're not going to answer the question because your counsel has objected on
Page 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

at the university have any role in preparing Exhibit 3 or Exhibit 4? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I don't know. Q. Let me ask the question again because it may have been compound. Did the university have anyone work on the preparation for Exhibit 3? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I don't know. Again, we relied upon the expertise of counsel to prepare these exhibits. Q. All right. Did the university have anybody work on Exhibit 4? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Not to my knowledge. Q. All right. Stepping back a minute, when was the university first notified by Jarg that Google may be infringing the patent? A. That was in, again, winter of -- around January -- winter, early spring of 2007. Q. So prior to that time, Northeastern University was unaware of the alleged infringement? A. Yes. Q. Was the university aware of the Google search engine?
Page 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the grounds of privilege? A. Yes. MR. WOLFF: All right. Have the reporter mark as Exhibit 3 a Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, and Exhibit 4, which is Attachment A to those disclosures. (Exhibit 3, Disclosure of the Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, marked for identification.) (Exhibit 4, Exhibit A, marked for identification.) BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Are you familiar with Exhibit 3? A. Yes. Q. How are you familiar with Exhibit 3? A. It was presented to me yesterday in meetings with counsel. Q. All right. When is the first time Northeastern University saw Exhibit 3? A. First time I saw Exhibit 3 was yesterday. Q. When did the university first see Exhibit 3? A. I don't know. Q. Did the university have any role or anyone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. How long has the university been aware of the Google search engine? A. I can only speak for myself. I have been aware of the Google search engine ever since I've been using it. Q. How long has that been; do you know? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. Maybe 15 years. Q. All right. A. 10 to 15 years. Q. Did you have any role in the preparation or the prosecution of the patent-in-suit? A. No. Q. How about the licensing of that patent to Jarg? A. No. Q. All right. So it never occurred to you that Google might be infringing the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. No. Q. At least not until Jarg informed the university -MR. STOUT: Objection to form. Q. -- that there may be some infringement?
6 (Pages 18 to 21)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 22

Page 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Yes. Q. All right. If you would turn to Exhibit 3. Did you review or have you reviewed the Patent Rules -MR. STOUT: Objection to form. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. -- in East Texas? A. No. Q. All right. So are you familiar with what these disclosures are intended to convey? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. No. Q. I'm going to hand you Appendix M, Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, and have this marked as Exhibit 5. (Exhibit 5, Appendix M, Patent Rules, marked for identification.) BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Now, these may help to put these, what's been marked as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 into context to look at the rules real quick. But if you take Exhibit 5 and you turn to patent rule 3-1, you will see a definition or explanation of what these disclosures are. Please take a moment to review those and let me know when you're done.
Page 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I don't know. Q. Did the university undertake any research to figure out how many versions of Google Web Search there were? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. No. Q. So is it your contention that all versions of Google Web Search infringe the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I will again read the sentence, all I can read is that it says that Google Web Search, what version that is, has infringed them. Q. Well, it's a yes or no question. Do you think all versions of Google Web Search infringe the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I don't know. Q. Well, how can I tell which specific version is referred to in the 3-1(b) disclosure? A. Again, we relied upon the expertise of counsel to prepare these documents. And I know the relationship between this and this (indicating) was indeed prepared by counsel to support our claim that Google has infringed the -Q. And when you say this and this, you're
Page 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. You want me to read -Q. Section 3-1. A. -- 3-1? Q. And each subparagraph in 3-1. A. Yes. Q. All right. And let's turn back to Exhibit 3 and we'll work through the contentions. And we'll start with 3-1(b). Now, is it Northeastern's position that all versions of the Google Web Search infringe the patent-in-suit? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. Repeat the question. Q. Is it Northeastern's contention that all versions of Google Web Search infringe the patent-in-suit? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I'll read what it says here: The version called Google Web Search service is infringing and continues to infringe the asserted claims of the '593 patent. Q. All right. So which -- are you -- how many versions of the Google Web Search do you think have been offered to the public? MR. STOUT: Objection to form.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

referring to Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5. A. I'm referring to Exhibit 3 and 5, that's correct. No. I guess it's called 4, the infringement contentions. Q. All right. Well, I'm asking about, you know, with respect to the rules, does this identify any specific version of the Google Web Search? And if it doesn't, is it your contention that all versions of the Google Web Search infringe? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Again, all I can do is say -- is read what it says here, that what's called Google Web Search, and I don't know the answer to your question. Q. All right. What is Google Web Search? What is your understanding of what Google Web Search is? A. It's the Internet search service that is the methodology by which Google does search. Q. All right. And can you describe how somebody would use it? A. When you "Google" something, you are looking for information about a specific topic, and you do www.google.com, and when it comes up, you put in key words, and you punch "search" and out

7 (Pages 22 to 25) SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 26

Page 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

comes information about where you may find information regarding specific topic areas. Q. All right. And that's your understanding of what Google Web Search is? A. That is correct. Q. Is it anything else? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. That's how I use it. Q. All right. Are you aware of any other Google Web Search that is implicated by your 3-1(b) disclosure? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. Objection, privilege also. To the extent that that question calls for things that are not disclosed in the infringement contentions, instruct the witness not to answer. A. I will not answer. Q. So you're going to follow your counsel's advice and not answer the question on privilege grounds? A. Yes. Q. All right. MR. WOLFF: We disagree with that instruction. Are you willing to reconsider it?
Page 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in Exhibit 5 for 3-1(f). A. Point me to a page. Q. Six. A. Okay. Q. Are you finished reading the rule? A. Yes. Q. All right. So you understand the rule? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Again, I believe what you're trying to do is help me to perform the task that our attorneys performed, which is to basically prepare the documents. And I'm relying upon their expertise to prepare these documents. I'm not sure what you want me to say here. Yes. I read it, I read what it says. Q. And you understand it. A. What it says to do. MR. STOUT: Objection to form. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Do you understand the rule? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. The rule appears to say to me that we must prepare Exhibit 4. The party must identify for each asserted claim each and such apparatus, product, device, process, method and act or other
Page 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: To the extent your question is calling for things that are not disclosed in the infringement contentions, that's where we have the objection. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Can you answer the question as your counsel has qualified it? A. No. Q. And the basis being the privilege instruction? A. Yes. Q. All right. We're going to skip 1(c) and move on to 1(e) -- skip 1(c) and (e.) A. You want -Q. Tell you what, we'll skip (e) as well. We'll turn to patent rule 3-1(f), your disclosure there. And if I could have you turn to Exhibit 5 and the definition of 3-1(f). A. I'm sorry. What do you want me to look at? I read the first sentence: "A prototype system that practiced at least the asserted claims was described in the '593 patent." Q. Right. A. Now, what -Q. What I want you to do is look at the rule

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular claim. Q. The first sentence says -- I guess there's one sentence here, "If a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to rely for any purpose on the assertion that its own apparatus, product, device, process, method, act or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party must identify separately for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device, process, method, act or other instrumentality," et cetera. Can you tell me with regard to the disclosure in Exhibit 3 whether the -- whether Northeastern or Jarg's own product is identified for each asserted claim? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Can you tell me what the prototype system is that's described in the '593 patent? A. No. I'm not a computer scientist and so I don't really understand all the details of what's in the '593 patent. Q. All right. Well, is there a product described in the '593 patent?
8 (Pages 26 to 29)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 30

Page 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. It's a search engine. Q. All right. But is there a Jarg product that's described in the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. MR. WOLFF: All right. If you'd like, we can take a short break and move on to the next line of questions. MR. STOUT: That's fine. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is 9:45 a.m. We're going off the record on tape number 1. (Proceedings interrupted at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened at 9:54 a.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is 9:54 a.m. We're going back on the record on tape 1. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. All right. Are you ready? A. Sure. Q. All right. Before I move on to the next line of questions, regarding the license to Jarg from Northeastern, what rights does the university retain to the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. The university -- if I recall properly,
Page 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Does the university receive any financial benefit from the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as a result of the -- as a result of the license with Jarg. Q. And what is that? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. Well, I don't recall the actual terms of the license, but I believe there is a royalty percentage. Q. A percentage of any royalties that Jarg receives as a result of -A. A percentage of -MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. Percentage of sales of Jarg. Q. So if Jarg licenses the '593 patent, does the university receive any money from that license? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Yes. Q. Do you know approximately what percentage? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I don't remember. Q. All right. Let's turn to Exhibit 4. And if I recall your earlier testimony, you did not see or Northeastern did not see these contentions until
Page 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the university retains the right to do research. Q. To practice the patent, too, or not? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. To do research. Q. What does "to do research" mean? A. Internal research. Q. What does that mean? A. As part of its education mission. Q. What does that mean? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. It means that the university can use the information in the patent as part of its research program. Q. Could the university practice the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Not for commercial purposes. Q. But for its own educational purposes, could the university practice the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Yes. Q. And is Jarg the exclusive licensee of the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

yesterday; is that correct? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I did not see these until yesterday. Q. Okay. Do you know if anybody at the university reviewed these prior to yesterday? MR. STOUT: Object. Form. Also going to object on the grounds it calls for attorney/client communication. A. I will not respond based upon advice of counsel. MR. WOLFF: How is that privileged? MR. STOUT: You're asking for communications between Northeastern -MR. WOLFF: I'm asking if the university received or reviewed a copy of contentions prior to yesterday. MR. VALEK: You're asking about communications between Jarg's outside counsel and university counsel prior to the preparation of these contentions. MR. WOLFF: I'm not asking about those communications. I'm asking if the university received or reviewed a copy of Exhibit 4. MR. VALEK: Are you asking if those communications occurred or the substance?
9 (Pages 30 to 33)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 34

Page 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. WOLFF: I'm not asking about the substance. I'm just asking if they received it. It's a yes or no question. MR. STOUT: So you may answer to the extent that you're not revealing communication. So factual things, you may disclose those, but not the substance of any communication. A. So repeat the question again. Q. I'll do my best. A. Yes. Q. Prior to yesterday, do you know whether the university reviewed Exhibit 4? A. Do I know if the university reviewed Exhibit 4? Q. Prior to yesterday. A. No. I do not know if the university reviewed Exhibit 4 prior to yesterday. MR. WOLFF: All right. So there is no privilege. Q. All right. Let's open up Exhibit 4 and move through it. Do I understand that you did not review the actual references cited in Exhibit 4. A. Yes. I did not review.
Page 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

assuming you haven't reviewed Exhibit 7 before? A. Yes. Q. All right. Let's turn back to Exhibit 4. I'll just represent to you that I understand these to be the two papers that are referred to in Exhibit 4 in the right-most column. How many infringement contentions did Northeastern and Jarg serve on Google? A. There are two. Q. All right. And can you tell me what the difference between the first and the second contentions are? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Turning to page 2 of Exhibit 4, the first contention says in the right-most column, "To the extent the preamble is a limitation on the scope of the claim, this element is present." Is it Northeastern's position that the preamble is a limitation or not? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I don't know what that means. I don't know. Q. Did the university prepare a claim construction analysis for the '593 patent?
Page 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. A. We are not attorneys at the university. We did not prepare this document. So all I'm going to do is cite what's in the document, that's all I can do. Q. All right. Well, you understand I just have to go through and ask the questions anyway. A. I understand. I understand. MR. WOLFF: All right. Let's mark as Exhibit 6 a document entitled, "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine." (Exhibit 6, "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine," marked for identification.) BY MR. WOLFF: Q. And I guess I'll just confirm that you haven't seen Exhibit 6 before? A. That's correct. MR. WOLFF: Have the reporter mark as Exhibit 7, "Web Search for a Planet: The Google Cluster Architecture." (Exhibit 7, "Web Search for a Planet: The Google Cluster Architecture," marked for identification.) Q. And Mr. Pirri, would I be correct in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you know who you would ask whether that was done? A. I assume it was done by the patent attorneys who filed the patent. Q. All right. And if it was done, was it communicated to Northeastern University? MR. STOUT: Objection. Privileged. To the extent you're asking him about anything that's not disclosed, I'm going to instruct my client not to answer the question. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Are you going to follow your counsel's instruction? A. I will follow his instruction, yes. Q. So can you tell me what a non-relational, distributed database is? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I am not a computer scientist. I was trained as an aerospace engineer. I can't help you. Q. You've read the patent, correct? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell me what the patent
10 (Pages 34 to 37)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 38

Page 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

describes a non-relational, distributed database is? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I don't understand a lot of the details of the patent. So I can't. I can only read to you what it says here. Q. If I gave you a copy of the patent, could you explain to me what a non-relational, distributed database is? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Probably not. Q. All right. Going to make me give you a copy of the patent. MR. STOUT: Jason, I don't want to interrupt, but when you're asking him about things that the university did, are you asking university or university's attorneys, its lawyers, agents? MR. WOLFF: I'm asking about the university. MR. STOUT: Exclusive of the attorneys, of its agents? MR. WOLFF: You can answer that however you think is appropriate to answer that question. I think that it's the university.
Page 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: So that would extend to then its attorneys? MR. WOLFF: Its in-house attorneys, yes; its outside counsel, no, I'm not including that. Do you maintain your objections? MR. STOUT: Well, to the extent that those questions involved activities by attorneys, I'm going to object as privileged, as work product, and if any of that was communicated to other employees at the university, also is privileged communication. MR. WOLFF: Are you aware of any communications to other employees at the university? MR. STOUT: I don't know that I can answer that question. MR. WOLFF: It's a yes/no question. If you're going to maintain a privilege objection, you've got to identify whether there are any communications you're objecting to. MR. STOUT: There are communications between attorney counsel and its employees and outside counsel and the university.
Page 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

And if you've got an objection to make on privilege grounds, then I propose you need to make it. MR. VALEK: I don't think that that's what he's getting at. All these objection to forms, when you say university, it's unclear whether you're asking about just Northeastern or Northeastern and any lawyers acting on its behalf. MR. WOLFF: I'm talking about Northeastern. MR. VALEK: So we can clear up a lot of these objection, form, create a cleaner record if we settle that issue. MR. WOLFF: I'm talking about Northeastern. MR. VALEK: So just the university. MR. WOLFF: I thought that it defined it in the deposition notice. MR. STOUT: Just so it's clear for Mr. Pirri, are you asking about things Northeastern's attorneys did or things that employees not attorneys of Northeastern did. MR. WOLFF: I'm talking about Northeastern University, its employees, its agents.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. WOLFF: Pertaining to what? (Simultaneous speaking.) MR. STOUT: The entire case. Infringement contentions, everything. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. All right. Are you aware of any communications between the university and counsel regarding claim construction? A. I am not aware of it. Remember, all of this was done before our office was formed, before I joined the university. Q. Right. But the suit was filed after you joined the university. A. But when you talk about claim construction, I assume you're talking about claim construction in the preparation of the patent. Q. No. And I'm glad you clarified that. I'm talking about in regard to this lawsuit. MR. STOUT: I'll object to the form. He clearly doesn't understand what these terms mean. A. Yeah. I'm not a lawyer. I guess I really completely misinterpreted your questions, because I assumed you were asking about claim construction in the preparation of the '593 patent, which occurred

11 (Pages 38 to 41) SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 42

Page 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in the mid-1990s time period. Claim construction that was done as part of the preparation for the suit, again, I am not an attorney. I don't know. Q. All right. But outside of any communications with counsel, are you aware of any claim construction analysis that was done by the university pertaining to the infringement contentions which are Exhibit 4? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I am not aware. Q. All right. I will hand you what will be marked as Exhibit 8. This is a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,694,593. (Exhibit 8, U.S. Patent No. 5,694,593, marked for identification.) MR. WOLFF: I assume the designation of confidential attorneys' eyes only is incorrect. MR. STOUT: What's that? MR. WOLFF: Do you want to withdraw the confidential attorneys' eyes only designation on this document? MR. STOUT: We can for this document, sure.
Page 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. And do you recall what Exhibit 8 describes? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Describes the '593 patent. It's a description of the distributed computer database system and method as invented by Ken Baclawski. Q. Do you know Ken Baclawski? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How many times have you met with him? A. Several times. Q. All right. Prior to 2007, did you meet with Ken Baclawski? A. Yes. He and I have served on an occasional committee together. Q. All right. Was any of that in connection with Jarg or was this separate? A. No. That was separate, separate matters. Q. Had you ever discussed Jarg with Ken Baclawski? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Not that I recall. Q. All right. So apart from the patent, just reciting what the patent says, are you able to -is Northeastern able to describe the '593 patent?
Page 45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. WOLFF: Appreciate that. Secret copy 1 of the patent nobody has seen before. 2 Q. Had you seen Exhibit 8 before? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. When's the last time you saw 5 Exhibit 8? 6 A. I read it. The last time I read it was 7 probably in the 2007 time period, between January 8 of 2007 and November of 2007. I read it once 9 during that time period, when I became aware from a 10 telephone conversation with Jarg that there was a 11 potential lawsuit. 12 Q. All right. 13 A. And so -14 Q. Did you review the prosecution history for 15 the patent, too? 16 MR. STOUT: Object to form. 17 A. No, I did not. 18 Q. Have you ever seen the prosecution history 19 for this patent? 20 MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. 21 A. No. 22 Q. All right. 23 A. I know it exists, but I did not see it -24 have not seen it. 25

MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. I am not able to describe in detail the '593 patent. Q. All right. Let's go back to Exhibit 4. And my question, which was, are you able to describe to me a non -- what a non-relational, distributed database is? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me why Northeastern believes that Google has a non-relational, distributed database? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. No. Q. All right. Are you able to tell me what a home node is? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me why Northeastern believes Google has a home node? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. You're continuing to ask questions that call for a legal conclusion. The contentions are set out in the infringement disclosures, and Northeastern is not a patent attorney.
12 (Pages 42 to 45)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 46

Page 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. WOLFF: I object to your speaking, coaching objection. And the witness -- I'm asking if he is able to explain what the factual basis for the contentions are and to better help Google understand the contentions that are made with respect to the patent. A. I believe some of the questions you're asking are more appropriately directed at the inventor. Q. All right. I guess one of the issues is, is Northeastern going to show up at trial and explain this patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. We will listen to advice of counsel at that -- as to whether we should do that. Q. All right. Because one of the things we want to do is understand Northeastern's basis for their infringement contentions and for the allegations -A. But they're presented in this document -Q. That's right. A. -- in the legal manner as was prepared by Vinson & Elkins, because we enlisted their expertise for this. When you start asking technical questions
Page 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

if your mic got moved. A. Oh, it may have moved. I can read you the document: "Document servers handle this job" function, [sic] "fetching each document from disk to extract the title and the key-word-in-context snippet." "Each cluster has around a few thousand machines." "The strategy is to partition the processing of all documents by having multiple server replicas responsible for handling each shard." "Google's document servers literally meet the limitation of a plurality of query nodes. These servers also meet the limitation under the doctrine of equivalents." Q. So other than reading the document, are you able to answer the question? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. And I'm also going to object to privilege to the extent you're asking about anything that's not disclosed in those infringement contentions. A. I'll not answer the question based upon the advice of counsel. Q. All right. So you're not going to answer
Page 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

about what's in the patent, like I said, I believe those are more appropriately directed toward the inventor and not toward me. Q. All right. I'll move through a few more of these and maybe we'll just get a general statement from you that says you don't know what any of this stuff is. MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. MR. WOLFF: There wasn't a question. A. There wasn't a question. Q. Can you tell me what a plurality of query nodes are, according to the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me why Northeastern believes Google has a plurality of query nodes? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I can read you the document here that indicates the basis upon the contention, first infringement contention. Would you like me to read it? I can read it word for word. Q. You can answer the question however you'd like. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm sorry. I didn't really hear that very clearly. I don't know

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

any part of my question based on his privilege objection; is that correct? MR. STOUT: I want to clarify, my objection is to the extent you're asking about anything that's not disclosed in those documents, that's privileged communication or work product. He's free to answer, but he can't step beyond what's already been disclosed. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. All right. Can you answer the question given your counsel's qualification on his objection? A. No. Q. Is your answer going to be the same every time I ask one of these questions on these claim elements? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Yes. MR. WOLFF: All right. And will your objection on privilege be the same every time I ask one of these questions? MR. STOUT: If you're asking about stuff outside of the disclosures, yes. Q. All right. Given your counsel's
13 (Pages 46 to 49)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 50

Page 52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

qualifications on his privilege objection, would you be able to answer any of the other questions on the claim elements in this chart which is in Exhibit 4? A. I will not be able to. Q. Would you be able to reconcile any inconsistencies in the contentions in Exhibit 4? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Would I be able to recognize any con -any inconsistencies? Q. Would you be able to reconcile -A. Reconcile. Q. -- any inconsistencies between the contentions, the first contention and the second contention found in Exhibit 4? A. No. MR. WOLFF: Let's take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is 10:18 a.m. We're going off the record on tape number 1. (Proceedings interrupted at 10:18 a.m. and reconvened at 10:32 a.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is 10:32 a.m. We're back on the record on tape number 1. A. Before we start, I want to make a correction. You -- there was a line of questioning
Page 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

question, too. How does that understanding apply to Google? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. I will read you what it says in the right column if you would like me to read it to you. Q. That's all right. I can read the document, too. A. Okay. Q. Do you have any understanding of what the term "randomly selecting" means? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. All right. Moving to the next clause, "Fragmenting, by said selected home node, a query from a user into a plurality of query fragments," do you understand what this clause means? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Do you understand how this clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only through this document. Q. All right. And are you able to enlighten in any way the description that's laid out in the right-most column of Exhibit 4?
Page 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that had to do with Northeastern's awareness of the documents that had been filed by our attorneys. And when I was speaking, I was speaking of my awareness as the director of technology transfer. I'm informed that our university counsel's office indeed was aware of and reviewed all of the documents that was prepared by Vinson & Elkins before they submitted it. Q. All right. A. So I was speaking from what was my knowledge. Q. Okay. All right. Well, let's turn back to Exhibit 4 and finish this up. If you could turn to page 3, the clause that reads, "Randomly selecting a first one of said plurality of home nodes," can you tell me what that clause means to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. It means to Northeastern what's basically stated in the document. Q. Well, what does that clause mean to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I don't know. Q. And I suppose I know your answer to this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I can read you the document. Q. All right. But you can't enlighten me any further about the basis for your contention that Google infringes or satisfies this element; is that correct? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. That's correct. Q. Next page, "hashing, by said selected home node, each said query fragment of said plurality of query fragments, said hashed querying fragment having a first portion and a second portion." Have you read that clause? A. I can read it here, yes. Q. All right. What does that clause mean to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Again, it means -- I don't know. Q. All right. Can you tell me how that clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as it is presented in this document. Q. All right. And you're not able to tell me anything more than what's stated in the right-most column of that document, meaning Exhibit 4?
14 (Pages 50 to 53)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 54

Page 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. That is correct. Q. The next clause, "Transmitting, by said selected home node," are you able to tell me what this clause means to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me how this clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as presented in this document. Q. All right. And you're not able to tell me beyond the words in the right-most column of Exhibit 4 how the clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. That is correct. Q. Next clause beginning, "using," scrolls to page five as well. Are you able to tell me what this clause means to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me how this clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. Only as presented in the document.
Page 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me how this claim applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as presented in this document. Q. Now, would it be beneficial or not for me to continue to go through every claim in the same manner I went through the first claim set? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. I would get the same answers for questions as to every one of the claims in the contentions; is that correct? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Yes. Q. So Northeastern is not able to at this time tell me what any of the clauses mean to it? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as presented in this document, as prepared by Vinson & Elkins. Q. In this document -A. As prepared by Vinson & Elkins. Q. -- in this form. Are you able to explain it with regard to
Page 57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And again, you are unable to tell me anything beyond the language in this document. MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. That is correct. Q. All right. Next clause, returning -excuse me. Strike that. Next clause, beginning, "returning." Are you able to tell me Northeastern's understanding of this clause? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me how this clause applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as presented in this document. Q. Next claim, which is claim 2, are you able to tell me what this claim means to Northeastern? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to tell me how this claim applies to Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Only as presented in the document. Q. Next claim, claim 3, are you able to tell me what claim 3 means to Northeastern?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to describe it with regard to the prosecution history? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to describe it with regard to Exhibit 6, which is the Google paper, "The Anatomy of a Hypertextual Web Search Engine"? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to describe it in any greater detail with regard to Exhibit 7, which is the document entitled, "Web Search for a Planet: The Google Cluster Architecture"? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. Q. Are you able to explain to me the difference between the first contention and the second contention -MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. -- in Exhibit 4? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form.
15 (Pages 54 to 57)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 58

Page 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. No. MR. WOLFF: All right. I have no further questions at this time. MR. STOUT: I have a few questions for redirect. EXAMINATION BY MR. STOUT: Q. Mr. Pirri, what do Exhibits 3 and 4 set out? MR. WOLFF: Object to form. A. They set out that -- the preparation basically of our contention that Google has infringed upon claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 13 of the '593 patent. Q. And how were those contentions prepared? A. They were prepared by Vinson & Elkins, our attorneys. Q. And did anyone at -A. Jarg and Northeastern University's attorneys, Vinson & Elkins. Q. Okay. And did anyone at Northeastern University review those contentions before they were submitted? A. It's my understanding that they were reviewed by university counsel.
Page 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And were you consulted or any non-lawyer staff consulted regarding the contentions? MR. STOUT: Objection. Privilege. I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer to the extent that calls for communication between university counsel's office and its employees. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. It's a yes or no question. A. I will not respond based upon advice of counsel. MR. VALEK: Wait. Are you asking him if communications occurred? MR. WOLFF: Yes. MR. VALEK: All right. He can answer. MR. STOUT: You can answer whether or not communications occurred. You can't disclose what those were. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. I don't want to know the substance of your communications. A. I can tell you there was no communication between me. Whether or not there was any communication with other employees of Northeastern University, I have no knowledge.
Page 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Does Northeastern believe that Google infringes the '593 patent? A. Yes. Q. And where is the basis and foundation for that belief set forth? A. It is set forth in Exhibit 4. Q. And to your knowledge as Northeastern University, as the representative of Northeastern University, do Exhibits 3 and 4 set forth the basis for Northeastern's contentions as to each claim element? MR. WOLFF: Object to form. A. Yes. MR. STOUT: That's it. MR. WOLFF: Couple of follow-up questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLFF: Q. Who was the university counsel at Northeastern that reviewed the contentions? A. They were reviewed by the office of university counsel, would be Vincent Lembo and Karen Abbott. Q. All right. And did both attorneys -- are both of those attorneys? A. Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. And beyond the contentions themselves, are you able to provide to me any factual basis other than Exhibit 4 for Northeastern's contention that Google infringes the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. Also object on a privilege basis to the extent your question is calling for anything not disclosed in those initial disclosures. A. I will adhere to my advice of counsel. BY MR. WOLFF: Q. And there's no part of my question that you're able to answer, given your attorney's instruction? A. No. Q. Prior to university counsel's receipt of the infringement contentions prepared by its lawyers, what was the basis of filing the complaint against Google? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. The basis of filing was that we believed, Jarg and Northeastern University believed that Google was infringing upon the '593 patent and we sought out counsel to indeed follow-up. Q. All right. Why did Northeastern believe
16 (Pages 58 to 61)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 62

Page 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that Google was infringing the patent? A. We believed that you were infringing the patent based upon initial conversation with Jarg. And preliminary information that we had based upon public information that was on the Web about the history of Google and a look at the '593 patent -Q. All right. A. -- led us to believe that, indeed, we should seek more expertise and help to make the decision as to whether to go forth. Q. Does that mean that you believed that there was infringement at that time or you weren't sure whether there was infringement at that time? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. We believed that there was possible infringement, so we sought counsel. Q. Okay. And what public information did you review about Google that led you to that conclusion? A. It was information that was on the website. I "Googled" Google to learn more about Google. And based upon what I saw on the website and what I read in the '593 patent and discussions with Jarg, we proceeded -- we decided we needed more expertise.
Page 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that we needed more expertise. Q. All right. Now, when you compared the stuff you saw on the Internet to the patent, how did you do that? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I read them. Q. You read what? A. I read the patent and I read on my computer screen what it said about the Google search engine. Q. On the Internet. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what did you look at in the patent? Did you walk through the claims of the patent and compare those claims to the information you saw on the Internet? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. Just superficially. Q. What do you mean superficially? A. I am not a computer scientist. I knew that if I read all the details, I would not understand them. And I basically relied upon expertise of our attorneys and also Jarg and any brief discussions with the inventor. Q. Okay. Do you recall what documents you
Page 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. But today, when I walked you through these contentions, you were unable to enlighten me on anything beyond the exact text in the contentions themselves in Exhibit 4. A. Yes. Q. Right. So when you made up your -- when you made your earlier conclusion that there was infringement, what was it based upon? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. It was based upon a suspicion that led us to seek additional expertise to make that determination. Q. We're going in circles here, aren't we? A. That's all I can say to you. Q. So -- what -- how did you reach the conclusion that you thought Google might be infringing the patent which led you to seek counsel? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I read what was on the Google website about how Google's search engine worked and looked at, to my best -- the best of my knowledge, the '593 patent, and said there could be infringement, and then relied upon the judgment of Jarg, who was more familiar with the process, and then we decided

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

saw on the Internet that lead you to your conclusion about how the Google product worked? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. Not explicitly. Q. Do you recall the general nature? A. Under Google, Inc., "The Story of Google" and how a search engine works. Q. Okay. What about "The Story of Google" made you conclude that it satisfied the claims in the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. I believe that the elements of basically, the basic superficial elements in the '593 patent sounded familiar, from what I read on the Internet. Q. All right. So what are the basic superficial elements of the '593 patent? MR. STOUT: Objection to form. A. That it is a search engine, and a search engine which uses various nodes and components to put together all of the pieces of information. Q. So is it your -A. Remember, I'm not a computer scientist. Q. Right. Is it Northeastern's belief that any search engine infringes its patent?
17 (Pages 62 to 65)

SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]

Page 66

Page 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I don't think I can comment on that. Q. You don't think you can comment on that? A. I don't know. I don't know. Q. All right. Well, let's look at one claim element and see how you came to that conclusion. Let's look at two claim elements. I'm going to change it on you. Page 3: "Fragmenting, by said selected home node, a query from a user into a plurality of query fragments." So when you were looking at this information on the Internet and arriving at the conclusion that Google satisfied this limitation, what was it you saw in the documents on the Internet that led you to the conclusion that this element was satisfied? A. I did not -MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. I did not address that specific element. Q. All right. So let's go to the next element. "Hashing, by said selected home node," beginning on page 4 of Exhibit 4, what was it that you saw on the Internet that led you to the conclusion that Google satisfied this claim element?
Page 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE I, ANTHONY N. PIRRI, do hereby certify that I have read the foregoing transcript of my testimony, and further certify that it is a true and accurate record of my testimony (with the exception of the corrections listed below): Page Line Correction

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this ____ day of ___________, 2008. _______________________ ANTHONY N. PIRRI

Page 69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. I did not address that element. Q. All right. Let's move to the next one: "Transmitting, by said selected home node." Do you see that claim element on page 4? A. Yes. Q. All right. And what was it that you saw on the Internet that led you to believe that this element was satisfied by Google? MR. STOUT: Object to form. A. I did not address the specific elements. Q. Did you address any of the elements of the claims in performing your analysis? MR. STOUT: Objection. Form. A. No. MR. WOLFF: All right. No further questions at this time. MR. STOUT: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It is 10:51 a.m. We're going off the record on tape number 1. End of the deposition. (Whereupon, this deposition was concluded at 10:51 a.m.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE Commonwealth of Massachusetts Suffolk, ss. I, Dana Welch, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that ANTHONY N. PIRRI, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am neither related to nor employed by any of the parties in or counsel to this action, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of this action. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 29th day of September, 2008. ____________________________ Dana Welch Notary Public My commission expires: October 22, 2010

18 (Pages 66 to 69) SHARI MOSS & ASSOCIATES [phone]