Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 106
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 106
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 106
`
`Page 1•1• • • • • • •UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT•2• • • • • • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA•3•4• • APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,• • • )•5• • • • • • Plaintiff,• • • • • • )•6• • • • • • • vs.• • • • • • • • •)• CASE NO. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD•7• • DEMARAY LLC,• • • • • • • • • )•8• • • • • • Defendant.• • • • • • )•9• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • )• •Page 1-30910• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • )11121314• • • • • • •REMOTE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF15• • • • • • • • •ALEXANDER D. GLEW, Ph.D16• • • • • • • • • • • •TAKEN ON17• • • • • • • THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 20221819202122• •Reported by: BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR23• •CSR NO. 1256324• •Job. No 20663225
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 106
`
`Page 2•1•2•3•4•5•6•7•8•910• • • • • • Remote Videotaped deposition of11• •ALEXANDER D. GLEW, Ph.D, taken via Zoom or12• •teleconference in Los Angeles, California, on13• •Thursday, February 17, 2022, before Brenda R.14• •Countz, CSR No. 12563.1516171819202122232425Page 3•1• •APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:•2• • • • • • (All counsel and participants present•3• • • • • • •via Zoom and/or teleconference.)•4• •FOR THE PLAINTIFF APPLIED MATERIALS:•5• • • • • • Paul Hastings•6• • • • • • BY:• Philip Ou, Esq.•7• • • • • • • • •Yar Chaikovsky, Esq.•8• • • • • • 1117 S. California Avenue•9• • • • • • Palo Alto, CA 943041011121314• •FOR THE DEFENDANT DEMARAY:15• • • • • • Irell & Manella16• • • • • • BY:• Olivia Weber, Esq.17• • • • • • • • •Samuel Lu, Esq.18• • • • • • 840 Newport Center Drive19• • • • • • Newport Beach, CA 926602021222324• •ALSO PRESENT:25• • • • • • STEPHAN ANDREYCHUK, VideographerPage 4•1• • • • • • • • • • • • • •I N D E X•2• •WITNESS• • • • • • • EXAMINATION BY• • • • • • • •PAGE•3• • ALEXANDER D. GLEW, Ph.D•4• • • • • • • • • • • • MR. OU• • • • • • • • • • • • 8•5•6•7• • • • • • • • • • • • E X H I B I T S•8• •NO.• • • • • •DESCRIPTION• • • • • • • • • • • • •PAGE•9• • Exhibit 1• • Claim Construction Declaration• • • • •1210• • Exhibit 2• • Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Alexander• • • 1311• • • • • • • • •Glew12• • Exhibit 3• • U.S. Patent Number 7,544,276• • • • • •1313• • Exhibit 4• • U.S. Patent Number 7,381,657• • • • • •1314• • Exhibit 5• • Applied Materials and Demaray• • • • • 1415• • • • • • • • •LLC’s Joint Claim Construction16• • • • • • • • •Statement17• • Exhibit 6• • Claim Construction Declaration of• • • 1518• • • • • • • • •Alexander Glew19• • Exhibit 7• • Transcript of Alexander Glew Dated• • •1620• • • • • • • • •3/2/2121• • Exhibit 8• • Claim Construction Order from the• • • 1622• • • • • • • • •West Texas Cases23• • Exhibit 9• • Document Entitled Power Systems• • • • 1724• • • • • • • • •For Reactive Sputtering of25• • • • • • • • •Insulating FilmsPage 5•1• •Exhibit 10• •Document Bates Stamped DEM-INT• • • • •17•2• • • • • • • • 00001124 through 1135•3• •Exhibit 11• •Document Bates Stamped DEM-INT• • • • •18•4• • • • • • • • 00001304 through 1307•5• •Exhibit 12• •Document Bates Stamped DEM-INT• • • • •19•6• • • • • • • • 00002517 through 2521•7• •Exhibit 13• •Power Supplies For Post Plasma• • • • •19•8• • • • • • • • Technologies, State of the Art and•9• • • • • • • • Outlook10• •Exhibit 14• •Periodic Table of Elements• • • • • • •2011• •Exhibit 15• •Errata Sheet Dated 2/16/21• • • • • • •2012• •Exhibit 17• •Modification of a Schematic• • • • • •22713• •Exhibit 16• •Document Entitled Handbook of• • • • •22814• • • • • • • • Radio and Wireless Technology15• •Exhibit 18• •Circuit schematic• • • • • • • • • • •24316• •Exhibit 19• •Circuit schematic• • • • • • • • • • •24617• •Exhibit 20• •A Demonstrative of a Frequency to• • •25318• • • • • • • • Attenuation Graph19• •Exhibit 21• •Demonstrative Graph of a Frequency• • 27920• • • • • • • • and Attenuation Graph21• •Exhibit 22• •Demonstrative Graph of a Frequency• • 28722• • • • • • • • and Attenuation Graph232425
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 106
`
`Page 6•1• • LOS ANGELES, CA - THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022•2• • • • • • • • • • • •9:08 A.M.•3•4• • • • • • •THE VIDEOGRAPHER:• Good morning, my•5• •name is Stephan Andreychuk.• I am the legal•6• •videographer in association with TSG Reporting,•7• •Incorporated.• Due to Covid-19 and following the•8• •practice of social distancing I will not be in•9• •the same room with the witness.• Instead, I will10• •record this videotaped deposition remotely.11• • • • • • •The court reporter is Brenda Countz;12• •also will not be in the same room and will swear13• •in the witness remotely.14• • • • • • •Do all parties stipulate to the15• •validity of this video recording and remote16• •swearing and that it will be admissible in the17• •courtroom as if it had been taken following Rule18• •30 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and the19• •states’ rules where this case is pending?20• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Plaintiff, Applied Materials,21• •agrees.22• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Demaray LLC agrees.23• • • • • • •THE VIDEOGRAPHER:• Thank you.• This is24• •the start of media labeled number one of the25• •video recorded deposition of Dr. Andrew Glew inPage 7•1• •the matter of Applied Materials, Incorporated•2• •versus Demaray LLC in the United States District•3• •Court, Northern District of California.• The case•4• •number is 5:20-cv-09341-EJD.•5• • • • • • •This deposition is being held via Zoom•6• •with all participants attending remotely.•7• •Today’s date is February 17, 2021 and the time is•8• •9:10 a.m. Pacific time.•9• • • • • • •My name is Stephan Andreychuk.• I’m the10• •legal video specialist from TSG Reporting,11• •Incorporated, headquartered at 228 East 45th12• •Street, Suite 810, New York, New York 10017.• The13• •court reporter today is Brenda Countz also with14• •TSG Reporting.15• • • • • • •Counsel, please introduce yourselves.16• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Good morning.• This is Philip17• •Ou from Paul Hastings on behalf of Applied18• •Materials and with me is my colleague, Yar19• •Chaikovsky, also from Paul Hastings.20• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Good morning.• My name is21• •Olivia Weber from Irell & Manella on behalf of22• •Demaray LLC and with me is my colleague, Sam Lu.23• • • • • • •THE VIDEOGRAPHER:• Thank you.24• • • • • • •Will the court reporter please swear in25• •the witness.Page 8•1• • • • • • • •ALEXANDER D. GLEW, Ph.D,•2• • • • • •having been first duly sworn, was•3• • • • • •examined and testified as follows:•4•5• • • • • • • • • • EXAMINATION•6• •BY MR. OU:•7• • • • Q.• •Good morning, Dr. Glew.•8• • • • A.• •Good morning.•9• • • • Q.• •Could you please state your full name10• •for the record?11• • • • A.• •I am Alexander David Glew.• I noticed12• •that you noticed an Andrew Glew.• Andrew Glew is13• •a different individual.14• • • • Q.• •Apologies.15• • • • A.• •Dr. Andrew Glew is in this industry16• •also but is a different person.17• • • • Q.• •I appreciate that clarification, Dr.18• •Glew.19• • • • • • •Dr. Glew, is it correct that you are20• •attending this deposition remotely from your21• •business office?22• • • • A.• •Yes, I am.23• • • • Q.• •And is that at 240 Pamela Drive,24• •Mountain View, California, 94040?25• • • • A.• •Yes, it is.Page 9•1• • • • Q.• •Is there anyone in your office today?•2• • • • A.• •No.•3• • • • Q.• •And you are joining this deposition•4• •through computer, is that right?•5• • • • A.• •Yes, through a computer.•6• • • • Q.• •Do you have any applications open on•7• •your computer other than this Zoom?•8• • • • A.• •No.•9• • • • Q.• •Are you sure?10• • • • A.• •I’m closing the last one now.11• • • • Q.• •What did you just close, Dr. Glew?12• • • • A.• •I closed Firefox.• I had the Zoom link13• •and my calender on there.• Unfortunately I closed14• •it earlier and I had to reopen it earlier to get15• •back in.• It took two minutes.16• • • • Q.• •Okay, no problem.17• • • • • • •Dr. Glew, you understand that because18• •we are taking this deposition remotely, there is19• •no one on our end that can monitor what you may20• •or may not have in front of you during the21• •deposition, right?22• • • • A.• •Yes.23• • • • Q.• •And do you agree that for the course of24• •the deposition you won’t open any applications on25• •your computer?
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 106
`
`Page 10•1• • • • A.• •Yes, other than Adobe to open the files•2• •you will probably send me.•3• • • • Q.• •Sure, other than Adobe to open some•4• •exhibits, do you agree you won’t open any other•5• •applications?•6• • • • A.• •Yes.•7• • • • Q.• •And do you have a phone with you?•8• • • • A.• •I have a desk phone, yes, and a mobile•9• •phone.10• • • • Q.• •Okay.• I don’t need you to turn your11• •mobile phone off but will you agree not to use12• •your mobile phone during the course of the13• •deposition?14• • • • A.• •Yes.15• • • • Q.• •You can certainly use it during the16• •break if needed but you understand that you17• •shouldn’t be using your phone to communicate with18• •anyone or to receive messages, notes from your19• •counsel or anyone else during the course of the20• •deposition, right?21• • • • A.• •Yes.22• • • • Q.• •I understand, Dr. Glew, that you have a23• •witness binder with you, is that right?24• • • • A.• •Yes, I do.25• • • • Q.• •That’s one that was provided by yourPage 11•1• •counsel?•2• • • • A.• •Yes, it was.•3• • • • Q.• •For the record, I have a copy of that•4• •binder and I just want to make sure logistically•5• •that have you the same thing that I have.• So•6• •bear with me, okay?•7• • • • • • •My understanding is your binder has an•8• •index that has 14 tabs, is that right?•9• • • • A.• •Yes, it does.10• • • • Q.• •Now before I mark each of these11• •exhibits, do you have any notes, handwritten12• •notes on any of those exhibits that you have?13• • • • A.• •No, I don’t.14• • • • Q.• •Do you have any notes whatsoever in15• •front of you?16• • • • A.• •No.17• • • • Q.• •Is it fair that the only documents that18• •you have in front of you are the ones in your19• •witness binder?20• • • • A.• •The ones in my witness binder.• I also21• •have my errata in the witness binder.22• • • • Q.• •Understood, and we received that this23• •morning, thank you.24• • • • • • •So other than the 14 exhibits in your25• •witness binder and your errata, do you have anyPage 12•1• •other documents in front of you?•2• • • • A.• •No.•3• • • • Q.• •At some point if you feel the need to•4• •grab another document that may happen to be in•5• •your office or look at something, will you please•6• •let us know what that is?•7• • • • A.• •Yes.•8• • • • Q.• •I trust that if you don’t inform us,•9• •that you won’t have any other documents or notes10• •that you are referencing during the course of the11• •deposition, is that fair?12• • • • A.• •That’s fair, yes.13• • • • Q.• •Great.• Why don’t we do this, so that14• •we save the time later.• I’m going to mark each15• •of the documents in your witness binder as16• •exhibits one by one, is that okay?17• • • • A.• •Okay.18• • • • Q.• •So what we’re going to mark as19• •Exhibit 1 is your Claim Construction Declaration20• •that you provided in this case pending in the21• •Northern District of California, is that right?22• • • • A.• •Yes.23• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 1, Claim24• • • • • • •Construction Declaration, was25• • • • • • •marked for identification.)Page 13•1• •BY MR. OU:•2• • • • Q.• •So we’ve marked as Exhibit 1 your Claim•3• •Construction Declaration.•4• • • • • • •I have Exhibit 2 as your CV, is that•5• •right?•6• • • • A.• •Yes.•7• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 2, Curriculum Vitae•8• • • • • • •of Dr. Alexander Glew, was marked•9• • • • • • •for identification.)10• •BY MR. OU:11• • • • Q.• •We will mark as Exhibit 2 the CV of Dr.12• •Glew.• Exhibit 3 we will mark as U.S. Patent13• •Number 7,544,276?14• • • • A.• •Yes.15• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 3, U.S. Patent16• • • • • • •Number 7,544,276, was marked for17• • • • • • •identification.)18• •BY MR. OU:19• • • • Q.• •Okay.• And the next tab is U.S. Patent20• •Number 7,381,657, is that right?21• • • • A.• •Yes.22• • • • Q.• •We will mark that patent as Exhibit 4,23• •is that okay?24• • • • A.• •Yes.25• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 4, U.S. Patent
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 6 of 106
`
`Page 14•1• • • • • • •Number 7,381,657, was marked for•2• • • • • • •identification.)•3• •BY MR. OU:•4• • • • Q.• •And Dr. Glew, today I will probably•5• •refer to the patents by the last three digits,•6• •the 276 patent or the 657 patent.•7• • • • • • •If I refer to them that way, will you•8• •understand what I’m talking about?•9• • • • A.• •Yes, that will be fine.10• • • • Q.• •And I might just collectively call them11• •the patents in suit.• I will be referring to both12• •patents together if I do.13• • • • • • •Is that okay?14• • • • A.• •That’s fine.15• • • • Q.• •I have as tab 5 Applied Materials and16• •Demaray LLC’s Joint Claim Construction Statement17• •filed in this case.18• • • • • • •Do I have that right?19• • • • A.• •Yes.20• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 5, Applied Materials21• • • • • • •and Demaray LLC’s Joint Claim22• • • • • • •Construction Statement, was marked23• • • • • • •for identification.)24• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Let’s mark as Exhibit 5 the25• •parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement inPage 15•1• •this case.•2• •BY MR. OU:•3• • • • Q.• •At tab 6 I have your Claim Construction•4• •Declaration that was provided in the cases that•5• •Demaray LLC filed against Intel and Samsung in•6• •the Western District of Texas.•7• • • • • • •Is that what you have at tab 6?•8• • • • A.• •That is correct.•9• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Okay, so let’s mark that as10• •Exhibit 6.11• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 6, Claim12• • • • • • •Construction Declaration of13• • • • • • •Alexander Glew, was marked for14• • • • • • •identification.)15• •BY MR. OU:16• • • • Q.• •I will just refer to that as your West17• •Texas Claim Construction Declaration, is that18• •fair?19• • • • A.• •That’s fair.20• • • • Q.• •At tab 7 I have the deposition21• •transcript of your deposition that was taken on22• •March 2, 2021 in the Texas cases.23• • • • • • •Is that right?24• • • • A.• •Yes, that is correct.25• • • • • • •MR. OU:• So let’s mark as Exhibit 7Page 16•1• •your March 2, 2021 deposition transcript.•2• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 7, Transcript of•3• • • • • • •Alexander Glew Dated 3/2/21, was•4• • • • • • •marked for identification.)•5• •BY MR. OU:•6• • • • Q.• •At tab 8 I have a claim construction•7• •order from the West Texas cases, is that right?•8• • • • A.• •That is correct.•9• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 8, Claim10• • • • • • •Construction Order from the West11• • • • • • •Texas Cases, was marked for12• • • • • • •identification.)13• •BY MR. OU:14• • • • Q.• •And that’s a claim construction order15• •dated August 17, 2021, right?16• • • • A.• •I have something out of order here.17• •Yes, the claim construction order is number18• •eight.19• • • • • • •MR. OU:• All right, so let’s mark as20• •Exhibit 8 the West Texas claim construction order21• •dated August 17, the 2021.22• •BY MR. OU:23• • • • Q.• •At tab 9 I have an article or a white24• •paper titled:• "Power Systems for Reactive25• •Sputtering of Insulating Films," from AdvancedPage 17•1• •Energy.•2• • • • • • •Is that right?•3• • • • A.• •Yes, that is nine.•4• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Okay, let’s mark as Exhibit 9•5• •the white paper from Advanced Energy titled:•6• •"Power Systems For Reactive Sputtering of•7• •Insulating Films."•8• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 9, Document Entitled•9• • • • • • •Power Systems For Reactive10• • • • • • •Sputtering of Insulating Films,11• • • • • • •was marked for identification.)12• •BY MR. OU:13• • • • Q.• •Exhibit 10 is an excerpt from the file14• •history.• I’m just going to read the Bates15• •numbers that I have associated with it.• It’s16• •DEM-INT 00001124 through 1135.17• • • • • • •Is that right?18• • • • A.• •Yes, that is correct.19• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 10, Document Bates20• • • • • • •Stamped DEM-INT 00001124 through21• • • • • • •1135, was marked for22• • • • • • •identification.)23• •BY MR. OU:24• • • • Q.• •And it looks like this excerpt from the25• •file history includes the declaration of Dr.
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 7 of 106
`
`Page 18•1• •Demaray which starts at DEM-INT 00001133.•2• • • • • • •Is that right?•3• • • • A.• •Yes, that is correct.•4• • • • Q.• •Okay, so let’s mark that as Exhibit 10.•5• • • • • • •Exhibit 11 is another excerpt from the•6• •file history for the parent application of the•7• •356 patent.•8• • • • • • •Do I have that right, Dr. Glew?•9• • • • A.• •I believe that’s 356.• It ends in 1304.10• • • • Q.• •Right.• So Exhibit 11 is a portion of11• •the file history DEM-INT 00001304 through 1307,12• •is that right?13• • • • A.• •Yes, that is correct.14• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Let’s mark that as Exhibit 11.15• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 11, Document Bates16• • • • • • •Stamped DEM-INT 00001304 through17• • • • • • •1307, was marked for18• • • • • • •identification.)19• •BY MR. OU:20• • • • Q.• •Exhibit 12 is an excerpt from the 65721• •patent file history and it has a Bates number22• •starting at DEM-INT 00002517 through 2521.23• • • • • • •Is that right, Dr. Glew?24• • • • A.• •That is correct, yes.25• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Okay, let’s mark that excerptPage 19•1• •of the 657 file history as Exhibit 12.•2• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 12, Document Bates•3• • • • • • •Stamped DEM-INT 00002517 through•4• • • • • • •2521, was marked for•5• • • • • • •identification.)•6• •BY MR. OU:•7• • • • Q.• •Exhibit 13 or tab 13 is another white•8• •paper from Advanced Energy titled:• "Power•9• •Supplies For Pulsed Plasma Technologies, State of10• •the Art and Outlook," by Richard A. Scholl,11• •S-C-H-O-L-L.12• • • • • • •Is that what you have at tab 13, Dr.13• •Glew?14• • • • A.• •Yes.15• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Let’s mark as Exhibit 13 the16• •Advanced Energy white paper entitled "Power17• •Supplies For Pulsed Plasma Technologies, State of18• •the Art and Outlook."19• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 13, Power Supplies20• • • • • • •For Post Plasma Technologies,21• • • • • • •State of the Art and Outlook, was22• • • • • • •marked for identification.)23• •BY MR. OU:24• • • • Q.• •At tab 14 I have a Periodic Table of25• •Elements, is that correct?Page 20•1• • • • A.• •That is correct.•2• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Let’s mark that as Exhibit 14.•3• •BY MR. OU:•4• • • • Q.• •Is that a Periodic Table of Elements•5• •that you provided, Dr. Glew, or counsel provided•6• •you?•7• • • • A.• •I provided it.•8• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 14, Periodic Table•9• • • • • • •of Elements, was marked for10• • • • • • •identification.)11• • • • • • •MR. OU:• And then let’s mark as Exhibit12• •15 your errata that we received this morning.13• •BY MR. OU:14• • • • Q.• •I understand you provided an errata15• •sheet for your declaration that’s dated February16• •16, 2021, is that right?17• • • • A.• •That will be fine.• I punched holes in18• •it and I will place it in a binder as 15.19• • • • • • •(Glew Exhibit 15, Errata Sheet20• • • • • • •Dated 2/16/21, was marked for21• • • • • • •identification.)22• • • • • • •MR. OU:• Okay, great, so let’s mark as23• •Exhibit 15 your errata.• Okay.• I want to get24• •started with some questions, Dr. Glew.25• •BY MR. OU:Page 21•1• • • • Q.• •Dr. Glew, do you understand you are•2• •under oath today?•3• • • • A.• •Yes.•4• • • • Q.• •And I believe the last time that we•5• •spoke you told me you testified before a jury•6• •less than ten times or around ten times, is that•7• •right?•8• • • • A.• •A jury, yes.• In the U.S., yeah, I•9• •think I said eight times.10• • • • Q.• •Okay.• And you understand that your11• •deposition is being videotaped today?12• • • • A.• •Yes, I do.13• • • • Q.• •Do you understand that that video might14• •be played in front of a jury at some point later15• •in time, right?16• • • • A.• •Yes, I do.17• • • • Q.• •And you understand that you should be18• •testifying today in your deposition as if you19• •were testifying in a court of law, right?20• • • • A.• •Yes, I do.21• • • • Q.• •Is there any reason that you can’t tell22• •the truth today?23• • • • A.• •No.24• • • • Q.• •Let’s talk about what you did to25• •prepare for your deposition.• And I don’t want to
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 8 of 106
`
`Page 22•1• •get into the substance of any privileged•2• •communications that you might have had.• I’m sure•3• •counsel will instruct you.•4• • • • • • •What, if anything, did you do to•5• •prepare for today’s deposition?•6• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• I will caution the witness•7• •not to divulge the contents of any•8• •attorney-client communications but you can answer•9• •yes or no as to whether you had discussions and10• •identify persons you’ve spoken with, if Phil asks11• •you about that.12• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I reviewed documents and13• •met with attorneys.14• •BY MR. OU:15• • • • Q.• •In terms of the documents that you16• •reviewed, did you review each of the documents17• •that are in your witness binder?18• • • • A.• •Yes, I did review the documents in the19• •binder.20• • • • Q.• •Are there any other documents that you21• •reviewed outside of the documents in your witness22• •binder?23• • • • A.• •Not that I can think of off the top of24• •my head.25• • • • Q.• •Approximately how much time did youPage 23•1• •spend reviewing the 14 documents in your witness•2• •binder in preparation for today’s deposition?•3• • • • A.• •Somewhere between two and three days.•4• • • • Q.• •Approximate number of hours?•5• • • • A.• •Somewhere between 16 and 25 hours.•6• • • • Q.• •And did you review those documents with•7• •your counsel?•8• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Again I will caution the•9• •witness not to divulge the contents of any10• •attorney-client communications but you can11• •answer.12• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I reviewed some of the13• •documents with my counsel, yes.14• •BY MR. OU:15• • • • Q.• •And you reviewed some of them just16• •independently on your own?17• • • • A.• •Yes, I reviewed some independently.18• • • • Q.• •Did you speak with anyone to prepare19• •for today’s deposition?20• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Again, I will caution the21• •witness not to divulge the contents of any22• •attorney-client communications but you can23• •identify the persons with whom you’ve spoken.24• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• Yes.25• •BY MR. OU:Page 24•1• • • • Q.• •And who did you speak with to prepare•2• •for today’s deposition?•3• • • • A.• •The attorneys I’m working with on this•4• •matter.•5• • • • Q.• •Did you speak with Ms. Weber?•6• • • • A.• •Yes, I did.•7• • • • • • •MR. OU:• And Olivia, I apologize if I•8• •pronounced your name wrong.•9• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• You pronounced it right.10• •BY MR. OU:11• • • • Q.• •How about Mr. Lu, another counsel for12• •Demaray that is attending the deposition, did you13• •speak with him?14• • • • A.• •Yes, I did.15• • • • Q.• •Any other counsel from Irell & Manella16• •that you spoke with in preparation for today’s17• •deposition?18• • • • A.• •No, not in preparation for today’s19• •deposition.20• • • • Q.• •So for example you didn’t speak with21• •Mr. Wells?22• • • • A.• •No, I did not.23• • • • Q.• •Did you speak with Mr. Hattenback?24• • • • A.• •No, I did not.25• • • • Q.• •How about Mr. Chu?Page 25•1• • • • A.• •No, I did not.•2• • • • Q.• •Outside of Ms. Weber and Mr. Lu, did•3• •you speak with anyone else to prepare for today’s•4• •deposition?•5• • • • A.• •Outside of Ms. Weber and Mr. Lu, I did•6• •not speak with anyone else in preparation for•7• •today’s deposition.•8• • • • Q.• •So for example you didn’t speak with•9• •Dr. Ernest Demaray in preparation for today’s10• •deposition, right?11• • • • A.• •No, I did not speak with Dr. Ernest12• •Demaray in preparation for today’s deposition.13• • • • Q.• •I think when we spoke last year you had14• •told me that since being engaged on this Demaray15• •matter or since you started consulting with16• •Demaray LLC, you hadn’t ever spoken with Dr.17• •Demaray during that period of time, is that18• •right?19• • • • A.• •I recall what I said was I don’t20• •remember speaking with him.• He may have been on21• •the initial interview.• I don’t recall that.22• • • • • • •But I don’t recall speaking with him on23• •any substantive matters and I don’t actually24• •recall him being at that meeting.25• • • • Q.• •Okay, and since that time, since your
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 9 of 106
`
`Page 26•1• •deposition last year in March, have you spoken•2• •with Dr. Demaray?•3• • • • A.• •No, I have not.•4• • • • Q.• •Have you exchanged any communication•5• •was Dr. Demaray?•6• • • • A.• •No, I have not.•7• • • • Q.• •What about any of the other named•8• •inventors on the patents; have you spoken with•9• •any of them since you became engaged on the10• •Demaray matter?11• • • • A.• •I don’t recall speaking with any of the12• •inventors on the patent in suit.13• • • • Q.• •Dr. Glew, as part of your preparation,14• •did you review your deposition transcript for15• •your deposition that you provided last March in16• •the Texas cases?17• • • • A.• •Yes, I reviewed that deposition18• •transcript.19• • • • Q.• •In your review of that transcript is20• •there any testimony that you gave that you21• •identified as incorrect that you feel like you22• •need to correct on the record now?23• • • • A.• •No, not really.24• • • • Q.• •And if something comes to mind today25• •and you need to make a correction, whether it’sPage 27•1• •your prior testimony, declarations or today’s•2• •testimony, will you please let me know?•3• • • • A.• •Yes, I will.•4• • • • Q.• •Dr. Glew, you also submitted, I•5• •believe, two declarations in the IPR proceedings•6• •related to the patents in suit, is that right?•7• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, scope.• This is•8• •a claim construction deposition.•9• •BY MR. OU:10• • • • Q.• •You can answer the question, Dr. Glew.11• • • • A.• •I submitted declarations in the IPR12• •matters.13• • • • Q.• •Did you review those declarations14• •before or in preparation for today’s deposition?15• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Again I will caution the16• •witness not to divulge the contents of any17• •attorney-client communications or work product.18• •You can generally describe the subject matter of19• •the work product but do not divulge contents.20• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• No, I did not review the21• •IPR declarations for today’s deposition.22• •BY MR. OU:23• • • • Q.• •You were also deposed as part of those24• •IPR proceedings, is that right?25• • • • A.• •Yes, I was deposed as part of the IPRPage 28•1• •proceedings.•2• • • • Q.• •I believe that deposition was last•3• •November, is that right?•4• • • • A.• •That sounds about right.•5• • • • Q.• •Did you review your testimony from the•6• •IPR proceedings in preparation for today’s•7• •deposition?•8• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• I will again caution the•9• •witness not to divulge the contents of any work10• •product and I will object again as to scope.11• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• No, I did not review my12• •deposition testimony from the IPR matter.13• •BY MR. OU:14• • • • Q.• •The testimony that you gave in the IPR15• •matters, both in declarations and in depositions,16• •those were all under oath, is that right?17• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Again, objection to scope.18• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I believe they were under19• •oath.• That would be more of a legal question.20• •BY MR. OU:21• • • • Q.• •Okay, when you gave your deposition22• •testimony you took an oath, right?23• • • • A.• •I didn’t review the deposition24• •testimony.• It would be normal to take an oath.25• • • • Q.• •And to the best that you can recall,Page 29•1• •did you testify truthfully in that IPR•2• •deposition?•3• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection as to scope.•4• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• To the best of my•5• •recollection, yes, I testified truthfully at the•6• •IPR deposition.• However, I did not review the•7• •deposition for today’s matter and I was not•8• •noticed for the IPR being on today’s deposition.•9• • • • • • •Further, I was not noticed, you noticed10• •someone else.11• •BY MR. OU:12• • • • Q.• •Is there any reason why your testimony13• •today would be any more or less truthful than the14• •testimony that you gave in the IPR proceeding?15• • • • A.• •I wouldn’t characterize anything as16• •being more or less truthful today.• I would17• •characterize it as having had more time to18• •consider the issues.19• • • • • • •Every time I review material and put in20• •further thought and discussion on something I,21• •you know, may have a more evolved or nuanced22• •understanding of a particular issue.• I wouldn’t23• •call it more or less truthful, just more studied.24• • • • Q.• •Do you have in mind any specific25• •opinions that you’ve provided in your declaration
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 138-18 Filed 03/18/22 Page 10 of 106
`
`Page 30•1• •in this case that are inconsistent with the•2• •opinions that you provided in the IPR•3• •proceedings?•4• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, vague and•5• •ambiguous, scope, asked and answered.•6• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• Would you repeat the•7• •question?•8• •BY MR. OU:•9• • • • Q.• •Sure.10• • • • • • •Do you have in mind any specific11• •opinions that you’ve provided in your declaration12• •in this case that are inconsistent with the13• •opinions that you provided in the IPR14• •proceedings?15• • • • A.• •I wouldn’t call it inconsistent. I16• •have accepted the Court’s determination on17• •limitation, certain limitations in the preamble18• •to the claims.19• • • • Q.• •Other than accepting the Court’s20• •determinations -- and by "Court" do you mean the21• •West Texas Court?22• • • • A.• •Yes.• I am referring to the Western23• •District of Texas Court.24• • • • Q.• •Okay.• So that claim construction order25• •came out before your deposition in the IPRs,Page 31•1• •right?•2• • • • A.• •Yes, I understand the claim•3• •construction order came out in August and I•4• •recall my deposition in the IPR matters was in•5• •November.•6• • • • Q.• •So, when you gave testimony in the IPR•7• •matters back in November, did you have the•8• •Court’s claim construction from Texas in mind?•9• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, vague and10• •ambiguous, scope.11• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I haven’t reviewed or12• •prepared to discuss my deposition testimony from13• •the IPR or declaration from the IPR matters. I14• •really couldn’t answer that at this point in15• •time.16• •BY MR. OU:17• • • • Q.• •Okay.• I think you said that from your18• •testimony and sworn statements in the IPR19• •proceeding to the declaration now, there are20• •certain opinions that may have evolved.21• • • • • • •I think "evolved" was the word you22• •used, right?23• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, misstates24• •testimony, vague and ambiguous, scope, asked and25• •answered.Page 32•1• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I believe I said that my•2• •opinions have had further study at this point and•3• •I may have more nuanced understanding of some of•4• •the matters, some of the issues in this matter.•5• •BY MR. OU:•6• • • • Q.• •Okay, I’m talking about your opinions•7• •though.•8• • • • • • •Have your opinions changed in any way•9• •from the opinions that you gave in the IPR10• •proceeding versus what you’ve provided in your11• •declaration in this case?12• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, compound, vague13• •and ambiguous, objection as to scope, objection14• •asked and answered.15• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• I haven’t reviewed my16• •deposition testimony or declaration from the IPR.17• •I cannot answer questions comparing the Northern18• •District of California declaration to the IPR19• •declarations.20• •BY MR. OU:21• • • • Q.• •Sitting here today, can you think of22• •any opinions that you’ve rendered in this case23• •that have changed since the opinions that you24• •gave in the IPR proceeding?25• • • • • • •MS. WEBER:• Objection, vague andPage 33•1• •ambiguous, scope, asked and answered.•2• • • • • • •THE WITNESS:• As I said before, I have•3• •not reviewed the IPR testimony or declarations•4• •for today’s deposition and I can’t compare the•5• •Northern District declaration to the previous•6• •work.•7• •BY MR. OU:•8• • • • Q.• •So sitting here today you are unable to•9• •identify any opinions that have changed between10• •your declaration in this case and the opinions11• •that you gave in the IPR proceeding, is that12• •fair?13•