Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1225

NOTICE by Eolas Technologies Incorporated re 869 SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) SEALED MOTION Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McKool, Mike)

Page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

3

TYLER DIVISION

4
5

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED,

6

Plaintiff,
7

vs.

Civil Action No.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., et al.,

6:09-CV-00446-LED

8

9

Defendants.
10

______________________________/

11
12
13
14

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD PHILLIPS, Ph.D., P.E.

15

VOLUME I ~ PAGES 1 - 272

16

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

17

FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012

18
19
20
21
22
23

BY:

24

CSR LICENSE NO. 9830

25

JOB NO. 45132

ANDREA M. IGNACIO HOWARD, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Page 226
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

"On May 31st, 1993, Wei e-mailed the two
17:30
engineers from Sun a link to a 'well-known' ftp site." 17:30
Do you see that?
17:30
A Yes, I do.
17:30
Q Okay. Do you have in your possession any
17:30
Viola browser code dated May 31st of 1993?
17:30
A I don't know. I'd have to go through that
17:30
exercise all over again.
17:31
Q Do you discuss in your report or the exhibits 17:31
to your report an analysis of any Viola browser code 17:31
that's dated May 31st of 1993?
17:31
A I don't know. I'd have to go through the
17:31
details.
17:31
Q All right.
17:31
Please do whatever you need to to answer my 17:31
question.
17:31
A I don't see any.
17:33
Q What evidence do you have that the ftp site 17:33
that you refer to for the May 31st, 1993, Viola code 17:33
was "well known"?
17:33
A Just that Pei Wei notified people as to where 17:33
it was.
17:33
Q So other than the fact that Pei Wei sent an 17:33
e-mail to the Sun engineers with respect to the URL 17:34
for the ftp site, you're not aware of any other
17:34

Page 227
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

evidence that the ftp site was "well known"?
17:34
A No.
17:34
Q I think maybe we're at a good place to take a 17:34
break because I think I'm going to shift to some
17:34
infringement-related questions.
17:34
MR. WOLFF: Okay. What's the elapsed time? 17:34
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Just give me one second. 17:34
This marks the end of disc No. 4 in the
17:34
deposition of Richard Phillips.
17:34
The time is 5:35 p.m., and we are off the
17:34
record.
17:34
(Recess taken.)
17:34
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the beginning 17:47
of disc No. 5 in the deposition of Richard Phillips. 17:47
The time is 5:48 p.m., and we are back on the 17:47
record.
17:47
MR. BUDWIN: Q. Dr. Phillips, it's true,
17:47
isn't it, that the first time that you heard of Pei 17:47
Wei or Viola was after you were engaged in this case? 17:47
A Yes, that's right.
17:47
Q Dr. Phillips, do you contend that the 1993
17:47
version of Adobe Acrobat anticipates any claim of
17:47
either the '906 or the '985 patent?
17:47
A I'm sorry. I was distracted. There was
17:48
something happening.
17:48

Page 228
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 Sure.
17:48
A Would you please repeat.
17:48
Q Dr. Phillips, do you contend that the 1993
17:48
version of Adobe Acrobat anticipates any claim of
17:48
either the '906 or the '985 patent?
17:48
MR. WOLFF: Object to form.
17:48
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I -- I would have to look 17:48
at my report on that.
17:48
This damn thing is shutting down all by
17:48
itself.
17:48
MR. BUDWIN: Q. Can you look at the paper
17:48
copy of your report, Exhibit 10, please.
17:48
A That's the invalidity report. You -17:48
MR. WOLFF: 262. That's the right one. All 17:48
right.
17:48
MR. BUDWIN: Q. Do you have Exhibit 10,
17:48
Dr. Phillips?
17:48
A I do, yes, uh-huh.
17:48
Q Can you turn to page 225. Are you there?
17:48
A I'm there.
17:49
Q Okay. And you say -- the section heading
17:49
there is:
17:49
"Mosaic in combination with Adobe pdf-related 17:49
postings to WW-talk."
17:49
Do you see that?
17:49

Page 229
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

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

A Yes.
17:49
Q Okay. Do you contend that the 1993 Adobe
17:49
Acrobat by itself anticipates any claim of either the 17:49
'906 or the '985 patent?
17:49
A Give me a moment to refresh my memory here. 17:49
Not itself.
17:50
Q So you agree with me, don't you,
17:50
Dr. Phillips, that you do not contend the 1993 Adobe 17:50
Acrobat by itself anticipates any claim of either the 17:50
'906 or the '985 patents?
17:50
A "By itself," you said?
17:50
Q By itself.
17:50
A It does not.
17:50
Q Dr. Phillips, have you met any of the
17:50
inventors of either the '906 or the '985 patent?
17:50
A No, I have not.
17:51
Q Do you have a positive or a negative
17:51
impression of the inventors of the '906 and the
17:51
'985 patent?
17:51
A I have no impression of them.
17:51
Q Do you believe that the research they did
17:51
that led to the filing of the patent -- the
17:51
'906 patent was new and novel?
17:51
A No, I don't.
17:51
Q Do you have any opinion of Eolas as a
17:51

877-702-9580

58

Page 230
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

company?
17:51
A I know almost nothing about -- no, I have no 17:51
opinion.
17:51
Q Now, you understand, don't you, that the
17:51
patents, the '906 and the '985 patent, were filed by 17:51
the University of California?
17:51
A Yes.
17:51
Q Okay. In your experience, is the University 17:51
of California in the business of filing bad patents? 17:51
MR. WOLFF: Object to form.
17:51
THE WITNESS: I have absolutely no way of
17:51
judging that.
17:51
MR. BUDWIN: Q. What's your opinion of the 17:51
University of California?
17:51
A As a former academic, my only opinion is
17:51
based upon the academic excellence, and the University 17:52
of California is known for that.
17:52
Q So you agree that the University of
17:52
California is known for academic excellence?
17:52
A And research.
17:52
Q And you agree that the University of
17:52
California is well known for its research?
17:52
A I do.
17:52
Q Do you have an understanding that the
17:52
University of California is the largest research -- 17:52

Page 231
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

public research institution in the country?
17:52
MR. WOLFF: Object to form.
17:52
THE WITNESS: I didn't know that.
17:52
MR. BUDWIN: Q. Would it surprise you to
17:52
hear that? Are you surprised to hear that?
17:52
A Oh, yeah. Oh, yes, right. Yes, uh-huh.
17:52
Q Are you aware that the University of
17:52
California files the most patents of any research
17:52
institution in the United States?
17:52
A I did not know that.
17:52
Q I want to shift gears and I want to talk
17:52
about your expert report on non-infringement. Can you 17:52
pull that up on your -- your computer.
17:52
A Yeah. This thing just rebooted and is asking 17:52
for a password.
17:53
MR. BUDWIN: Why don't we take a break.
17:53
MR. WOLFF: No, we don't need a break. We
17:53
need a password.
17:53
THE WITNESS: Just need a password.
17:53
MR. BUDWIN: Can we go off the record,
17:53
please.
17:53
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 5:54 p.m., and 17:53
we are off the record.
17:53
(Recess taken.)
17:53
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 5:54 p.m., and 17:53

Page 232
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

we are back on the record.
17:53
MR. BUDWIN: Q. Do you have that report,
17:53
Dr. Phillips?
17:53
A I'm almost there.
17:53
Q Okay.
17:54
A It's a spinning dot. Sorry.
17:54
Q Do you have the report available to you,
17:54
Dr. Phillips?
17:54
A I'm sorry. I'm getting some error messages 17:54
here.
17:54
MR. BUDWIN: All right. Let's go off the
17:54
record.
17:54
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is -17:54
MR. WOLFF: It's up.
17:54
THE WITNESS: It's up. It's up. Okay.
17:54
MR. BUDWIN: Okay. We can stay on. All
17:54
right.
17:54
Q Do you have your expert report of
17:54
non-infringement, November 15th, 2011?
17:54
A Yes.
17:55
Q In your expert report on non-infringement,
17:55
you discuss something called the document object
17:55
model?
17:55
A That's right. Yes, I do.
17:55
Q And that's sometimes referred to as the DOM? 17:55

Page 233
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

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

A Yeah. Excuse me.
17:55
Q Now, it's your opinion, isn't it,
17:55
Dr. Phillips, that the DOM cannot be the document or 17:55
the file called for by the claims of the
17:55
Patents-in-Suit?
17:55
A That's my opinion, yes.
17:55
Q Can you turn to page 37 of your report.
17:55
A I'm there.
17:56
Q Okay. And do you see paragraph 105 or -17:56
sorry -- page 36, paragraph 105?
17:56
A Yes, I do.
17:56
Q Okay. And that paragraph continues onto
17:56
page 37?
17:56
A Yes.
17:56
Q All right.
17:56
On page 37, do you see where you say:
17:56
"The hypermedia document" -- in bold and
17:56
italics -- "in the claims is a well-defined entity." 17:57
Do you see that?
17:57
A On 37?
17:57
Q Yes, page 37:
17:57
"The hypermedia document in the claims is a 17:57
well-defined entity."
17:57
A Yes, okay.
17:57
Q Okay. What -- what do you contend satisfies 17:57

877-702-9580

59