Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30359 Page 1 of
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`
`TO DECLARATION OF CHRISTIANA GARRETT
`IN SUPPORT OF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS
`(IMPLANT PATENTS)
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`
`TO DECLARATION OF CHRISTIANA GARRETT
`IN SUPPORT OF NUVASIVE, INC.’S
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS
`(IMPLANT PATENTS)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30360 Page 2 of
`16
`
`· · · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`· · · · · · · · · ·SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`· · NUVASIVE, INC., a· · · · · )
`· · Delaware corporation,· · · )
`· · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · )· CASE NO.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· 18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`· · ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.,· ·)
`· · a Delaware corporation,· · )
`· · and ALPHATEC SPINE,· · · · )
`· · INC., a California· · · · ·)
`· · corporation,· · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · Defendants.· · · · · · )
`· · · ·--------------------------------------------------
`· · · · · · · · · · · ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`· · · ·ORAL, VIDEOTAPED AND VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF
`· · · · · · · · · · · KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · January 12, 2021
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VOLUME 1
`· · · · --------------------------------------------------
`
`· · · · ·ORAL, AND VIDEOTAPED AND VIDEOCONFERENCED
`
`· · DEPOSITION OF KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D., produced as a
`
`· · witness at the instance of the Plaintiff, taken in the
`
`· · above-styled and -numbered cause on the January 12,
`
`· · 2021, from 9:04 a.m. to 6:18 p.m., before Jamie K.
`
`· · Israelow, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the
`
`· · State of Texas, Registered Merit Reporter and Certified
`
`· · Realtime Reporter, reported in machine shorthand, with
`
`· · the witness appearing remotely in the City of Dallas,
`
`· · County of Dallas and State of Texas, Regarding the
`
`· · COVID-19 State of Disaster, and the provisions stated on
`
`· · the record or attached hereto; that the deposition shall
`
`· · be read and signed before any notary public.
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 150
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30361 Page 3 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·REMOTE APPEARANCES
`
`·2
`
`·3· FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`·4· · · ·Mr. Erik J. Carlson
`· · · · ·WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`·5· · · ·633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`· · · · ·Los Angeles, California· 90071
`·6· · · ·323.210.2900
`· · · · ·ecarlson@wsgr.com
`·7
`
`·8· FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
`
`·9· · · ·Mr. Brian J. Nisbet
`· · · · ·WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`10· · · ·35 W. Wacker Drive
`· · · · ·Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`11· · · ·D: 312.558.3254
`· · · · ·bnisbet@winston.com
`12
`
`13· ALSO PRESENT:
`
`14· · · ·Rick Bell, Remote Videographer
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 151
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30362 Page 4 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`·2· Appearances· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2
`
`·3· KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D.
`
`·4· · · EXAMINATION BY MR. CARLSON· · · · · · · · · · · · ·5
`
`·5
`· · ·Corrections and Signature· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·233
`·6· ·Reporter's Certificate· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 235
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · EXHIBITS
`· · · · · · (Provided electronically to the reporter)
`·9· NO.· · · · · · ·DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`10· Exhibit 1· · · ·Supplemental Rebuttal Expert· · · · · 10
`· · · · · · · · · · Report of Keith R. Ugone, PH.D.,
`11· · · · · · · · · December 18, 2020
`· · Exhibit 2· · · ·Exhibits to the Supplemental· · · · · 29
`12· · · · · · · · · Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R.
`· · · · · · · · · · Ugone, PH.D., December 18, 2020
`13· Exhibit 3· · · ·Spreadsheet Bates Numbered· · · · · · 70
`· · · · · · · · · · ATEC_LLIF000971397
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 152
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30363 Page 5 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · · · (On the record at 9:04 a.m.)
`
`·3· · · · · · · · (Reporter's Note:· Due to the quality of a
`
`·4· · · · · · · · Zoom videoconference and transmission of
`
`·5· · · · · · · · data, audio distortion and audio freezes
`
`·6· · · · · · · · make it more challenging to prepare a
`
`·7· · · · · · · · transcript as opposed to one prepared
`
`·8· · · · · · · · during in-person proceedings.)
`
`·9· · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're on the record at
`
`10· 9:07 a.m., Central Time.· Today's date is January 12th,
`
`11· 2021.· This is the oral and video-recorded deposition of
`
`12· Keith Ugone, Ph.D., in the matter of NuVasive, Inc.
`
`13· versus Alphatec Holdings and Alphatec Spine,
`
`14· Incorporated, in the United States District Court,
`
`15· Southern District of California, San Diego Division.
`
`16· Case Number 18-CV-00347-CAB-MDD.
`
`17· · · · · · · · This deposition is being held by Zoom
`
`18· videoconference.· Participants should be aware that this
`
`19· proceeding is being recorded, and as such, all
`
`20· conversations held will be recorded unless there is a
`
`21· request and agreement to go off the record.· Private
`
`22· conversations and/or attorney-client interaction should
`
`23· be held outside the presence of the remote interface.
`
`24· · · · · · · · Will counsel please state their appearance
`
`25· for the record.
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 153
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30364 Page 6 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · · · MR. CARLSON:· Erik Carlson from Wilson,
`
`·2· Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati for plaintiff, NuVasive.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Brian Nisbet on behalf of --
`
`·4· with Winston Strawn on behalf of the Alphatec entities.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Thank you.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · Will the court reporter please swear in
`
`·7· the witness.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D.,
`
`·9· having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`11· BY MR. CARLSON:
`
`12· · · Q.· ·Good morning, Dr. Ugone.
`
`13· · · A.· ·Good morning.
`
`14· · · Q.· ·Could you please state your name for the
`
`15· record.
`
`16· · · A.· ·Keith Raymond Ugone, last name is spelled
`
`17· U-g-o-n-e.
`
`18· · · Q.· ·And you were previously deposed in this case,
`
`19· right?
`
`20· · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`21· · · Q.· ·December 30th, 2019 sound right?
`
`22· · · A.· ·That sounds approximately right.· I don't have
`
`23· the exact date, but I'm not going to disagree with that.
`
`24· · · Q.· ·And since that time, has your work address
`
`25· changed?
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 154
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30365 Page 7 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Is it -- objection to form,
`
`·2· speculation.
`
`·3· · · A.· ·Yeah.· I don't -- I don't have any -- I don't
`
`·4· have any empirics on that.· I mean, I -- I think the
`
`·5· answer is the same that I gave for the safety issue.
`
`·6· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Let's turn now to your
`
`·7· reasonable royalty analysis, Dr. Ugone.
`
`·8· · · · · · · · I believe you testified previously, you
`
`·9· did not perform an apportionment in your access system
`
`10· report, and I just wanted to see if that was the case
`
`11· for your implant report.
`
`12· · · · · · · · Did you perform an apportionment for
`
`13· reasonable royalty in your implant report?
`
`14· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form,
`
`15· mischaracterizing his prior testimony.
`
`16· · · A.· ·Just give me a second because I think I know
`
`17· what the answer is, but I'm trying to connect the dots
`
`18· back to the old report versus -- versus this report.
`
`19· · · · · · · · The value of the patented technology, I
`
`20· believe, is imbedded in the market test or the market
`
`21· results, and the market result is a comparable license
`
`22· that, given the comparability of the Warsaw or Alphatec
`
`23· license to the patents-in-suit, then that dictates, you
`
`24· know, a royalty rate that can be used.· Although, there
`
`25· are indicators why that's, from a defense perspective,
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 155
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30366 Page 8 of
`16
`
`·1· conservatively high.· But I do not view in this
`
`·2· situation that a further apportionment -- that I would
`
`·3· do a further apportionment.· If I did a further
`
`·4· apportionment, that number would come down.
`
`·5· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Okay.· Could you turn to
`
`·6· Paragraph 137(b) of your report.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Did you say 137(b), Erik?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. CARLSON:· I did.
`
`·9· · · A.· ·Okay.· Let me just catch up with you for a
`
`10· second here.
`
`11· · · · · · · · Okay.· I think I'm ready.
`
`12· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Okay.· In Paragraph 137(b),
`
`13· your report has an opinion that:· As of January 2016,
`
`14· numerous claims of the Implant Patents had been deemed
`
`15· invalid, right?
`
`16· · · A.· ·That's my understand -- actually, you said I
`
`17· have an opinion.· I -- that's kind of a factual
`
`18· statement, not an opinion.
`
`19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· My mistake.· A factual statement.
`
`20· · · · · · · · So -- and you continue with:· While
`
`21· NuVasive appealed the invalidity ruling, the uncertainty
`
`22· surrounding the validity of the Implant Patents would
`
`23· have placed additional downward pressure on the
`
`24· to-be-determined royalty amount.
`
`25· · · · · · · · So, here, here, you have an opinion on the
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 156
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30367 Page 9 of
`16
`
`·1· effect of the invalidity ruling on the royalty amount,
`
`·2· right?
`
`·3· · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·4· · · Q.· ·What's the basis for this opinion that
`
`·5· invalidity ruling has an impact on a reasonable royalty?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`·7· · · A.· ·I'm going to give the easiest possible answer
`
`·8· that if a patent is invalid, why should you pay
`
`·9· anything?· That's in the extreme.· I mean, if there were
`
`10· negotiations here.
`
`11· · · · · · · · What I'm trying to say is that -- and,
`
`12· frankly, you know, if this was happening, I might even
`
`13· ask for more legal guidance on how to handle this, when
`
`14· you have an invalidity ruling that's being appealed, but
`
`15· if there's a need for a hypothetical negotiation, how
`
`16· does the law even treat that?
`
`17· · · · · · · · So I'm just giving a -- you know,
`
`18· basically, an economic answer here that if there's less
`
`19· claims or the scope of the claims is less -- or if the
`
`20· patent's invalid, you know, why wouldn't there be
`
`21· downward pressure on the -- on the royalty rate?
`
`22· · · · · · · · Why wouldn't somebody pay full price under
`
`23· that state of the world at that moment in time?
`
`24· · · · · · · · You know, unless the court said to me, you
`
`25· know:· Well, you still have to assume that they're valid
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 157
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30368 Page 10 of
`16
`
`·1· and you can't bring this in, then this wouldn't hold.
`
`·2· But I'm saying, given the state of the world and given
`
`·3· that numerous claims have been deemed invalid, and if
`
`·4· you just go with that state of the world, then the rest
`
`·5· of this paragraph holds.
`
`·6· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· So why do you mention the
`
`·7· court not letting this in for the specific opinion?
`
`·8· · · A.· ·You might have misinterpreted.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · Why did I mention letting the court coming
`
`10· this in?· I didn't say that.
`
`11· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm sorry.· But if I understood your
`
`12· answer to be that this was an economic perspective, but
`
`13· you may need to seek legal guidance to determine whether
`
`14· the court would let this in for a reasonable royalty
`
`15· analysis.· And I'm paraphrasing that --
`
`16· · · A.· ·No.· That -- that paraphrasing is like follow
`
`17· territory way off in right field.
`
`18· · · Q.· ·All right.· Bring back -- bring it back in
`
`19· play.
`
`20· · · A.· ·What I was saying is, I might need guidance
`
`21· from the court, not that they wouldn't let it in, but
`
`22· how does the court treat this situation?
`
`23· · · · · · · · Would the court say, no, no, no, you still
`
`24· need to assume that the patents, even the invalid claims
`
`25· are still valid, in which case, then, you know, I would
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 158
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30369 Page 11 of
`16
`
`·1· alter what I would say here.· That's what I was trying
`
`·2· to say.
`
`·3· · · Q.· ·Did you analyze the popularity and commercial
`
`·4· success of NuVasive's XLIF product when determining a
`
`·5· reasonable royalty, correct?
`
`·6· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`·7· · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· Analyze -- just ask the question
`
`·8· again.· Sometimes I have a hard time hearing it.
`
`·9· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Sure.
`
`10· · · · · · · · You analyzed the popularity and commercial
`
`11· success of NuVasive's XLIF product in determining --
`
`12· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· Wait.· Wait.
`
`13· Of NuVasive's something product.
`
`14· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Dr. Ugone, you analyzed the
`
`15· popularity and commercial success of NuVasive's XLIF
`
`16· product when determining a reasonable royalty, correct?
`
`17· · · A.· ·That was taken into account, sure.
`
`18· · · Q.· ·Is it the most popular and commercially
`
`19· successful lateral platform on the market?
`
`20· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`21· · · A.· ·I think as indicated by the relative market
`
`22· share of NuVasive, in the LLIF market segment, that it
`
`23· appears to be the best seller.
`
`24· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· So NuVasive is the most
`
`25· popular and commercially successful lateral platform on
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 159
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30370 Page 12 of
`16
`
`·1· the market, right?
`
`·2· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`·3· · · A.· ·They appear to have roughly 50 percent share of
`
`·4· the lateral procedures that we're talking about here.
`
`·5· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· But NuVasive's 50 percent
`
`·6· share makes them the most popular commercially
`
`·7· successful lateral platform on the market, correct?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`·9· · · A.· ·I'm just hesitating on the word "popular."· It
`
`10· is the most commercially successful, I will agree with
`
`11· that.
`
`12· · · Q.· ·(By Mr. Carlson)· Okay.· Isn't it reasonable to
`
`13· believe that the more Alphatec can make its product
`
`14· similar to XLIF, the more likely it will compete
`
`15· directly with NuVasive?
`
`16· · · · · · · · MR. NISBET:· Objection to form.
`
`17· · · A.· ·I would think that there's a number of
`
`18· different considerations going on, including
`
`19· differentiating your product.· In other words, why
`
`20· should you buy Alphatec as opposed to NuVasive?
`
`21· · · · · · · · And this is where additional
`
`22· considerations come into play.· NuVasive may know that
`
`23· they've got 50 percent of the market.· They've always
`
`24· had 50 percent of the market.· There's 50 percent of the
`
`25· market they're not going to get.· One way to get extra
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 160
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30371 Page 13 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`· · · · · · · · · ·SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`·2· · · · · · · · · · ·SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`·3· NUVASIVE, INC., a· · · · · )
`· · Delaware corporation,· · · )
`·4· · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·5· VS.· · · · · · · · · · · · )· CASE NO.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)· 18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD
`·6· ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC.,· ·)
`· · a Delaware corporation,· · )
`·7· and ALPHATEC SPINE,· · · · )
`· · INC., a California· · · · ·)
`·8· corporation,· · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · Defendants.· · · · · · )
`·9
`
`10· · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION OF THE ORAL, VIDEOTAPED
`
`11· · · · · · ·AND VIDEOCONFERENCED DEPOSITION OF
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D.
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · ·January 12, 2021
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · I, Jamie K. Israelow, a Certified Shorthand
`
`16· Reporter duly commissioned and qualified in and for the
`
`17· State of Texas, Registered Merit Reporter and Certified
`
`18· Realtime Reporter, do hereby certify to the following:
`
`19· · · · · · That the witness, KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D., was
`
`20· duly sworn by the officer and that the transcript of the
`
`21· oral deposition is a true record of the testimony given
`
`22· by the witness:
`
`23· · · · · · That the original transcript was delivered to
`
`24· Mr. Erik J. Carlson.
`
`25· · · · · · That a copy of the certificate was served on
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 161
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30372 Page 14 of
`16
`
`·1· all parties and/or the witness shown herein on
`
`·2· ___________________.
`
`·3· · · · · · I further certify that pursuant to FRCP Rule
`
`·4· 30(f)(1) that the signature of the deponent:
`
`·5· · · · · · _X_ was requested by the deponent or a party
`
`·6· before the completion of the deposition and that
`
`·7· signature is to be before any notary public and returned
`
`·8· within 30 days from date of receipt of the transcript.
`
`·9· If returned, the attached Changes and Signature Page
`
`10· contains any changes and the reasons therefor;
`
`11· · · · · · ___ was not requested by the deponent or a
`
`12· party before the completion of the deposition.
`
`13· · · · · · I further certify that I am neither attorney
`
`14· or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the
`
`15· parties to the action in which this deposition is taken,
`
`16· and further that I am not a relative or employee of any
`
`17· attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or
`
`18· financially interested in the action.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 162
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30373 Page 15 of
`16
`
`·1· · · · · · CERTIFIED TO BY ME on this 14th day of
`
`·2· ·January, 2021.
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· · · · · · · · _____________________________________
`· · · · · · · · · Jamie K. Israelow, CSR, RMR, CRR
`·6· · · · · · · · Texas CSR 3801
`· · · · · · · · · Expiration Date:· 4/30/2021
`·7· · · · · · · · US Legal Support-Dallas
`· · · · · · · · · CRCB Registration No. 343
`·8· · · · · · · · 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 350
`· · · · · · · · · Dallas, Texas· 75231
`·9· · · · · · · · 214.741.6001
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 163
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 311-12 Filed 02/26/21 PageID.30374 Page 16 of
`16
`Deposition Errata Sheet
`Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`Deposition Date: January 12, 2021
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`Page:Line
`
`Original Testimony
`
`Corrected Testimony
`
`Reason
`
`92:5
`125:25
`140:23
`154:22
`188:16
`222:17
`223:8
`223:11
`
`223:16
`225:4–5
`
`
`LF
`01
`conversation
`discreet
`follow
`patent
`for the hype of that royalty
`and the year out for the
`
`alteratives
`start process
`
`To clarify the record
`XLIF
`To clarify the record
`zero-one
`Transcription error
`conversations
`To clarify the record
`discrete
`Transcription error
`foul
`Transcription error
`patents
`for the hype -- for the royalty Transcription error
`and took it a year out for the
`Transcription error
`access patents
`alternatives
`start the process
`
`Transcription error
`Transcription error
`
`I, KEITH R. UGONE, Ph.D., have read the foregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature that same is true
`and correct, except as noted above, and that I am signing under penalty of perjury.
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`February 19, 2021
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 36
`Page 164
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
