Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46133 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 26
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46134 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 26
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD, and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. 12-cv-11758
`
`v
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`_________________________/
`
`JURY TRIAL - VOLUME IV
`EXCERPTS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
`231 West Lafayette Boulevard
`Detroit, Michigan
`Friday, April 10, 2015
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`MR. A. MICHAEL PALIZZI
`MR. MICHAEL C. SIMONI
`Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone,
`PLC
`150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500
`Detroit, Michigan
`48226
`(313) 486-7645
`MR. RAYMOND N. NIMROD
`MR. MATTHEW A. TRAUPMAN
`MS. ANASTASIA M. FERNANDS
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 29th Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`(212) 849-7412
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46135 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 26
`
`13
`
`Or
`
`Put up Defendant's
`
`later.
`Q.
`Those are the ones that Nichia points, allegedly points
`to, is that right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`So let's take a look at those.
`Exhibit 99, please.
`Can you tell us what this document is, Doctor?
`it's a picture, really.
`What this is, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`This is one of the awards Nichia talks about.
`It states
`it's a testimonial for phosphor award in recognition for your
`remarkable achievements in your research and development of
`white LED light sources.
`Q.
`What's the date of this award?
`A.
`November 30th, 2001.
`Q.
`And remind us how that compares to the date of the filing
`of the '925 patent.
`A.
`That was about four years later.
`Q.
`So then if we look at the specific individuals at Nichia
`who are named, how many people are named?
`A.
`Ten.
`Q.
`Remind us how many named inventors there are?
`A.
`Four.
`Q.
`Are all four named inventors listed on this, this award?
`A.
`No.
`I believe it's -- Mr. Moriguchi's name is not on the
`award.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46136 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 26
`
`14
`
`And there are how many individuals who aren't named
`Q.
`inventors listed on this award?
`A.
`Seven.
`Q.
`So what conclusions do you draw based on these facts about
`the significance of this award?
`A.
`I think it was for work that was well after that
`development and it can't be tied to that.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So if we go again to another award that Nichia
`allegedly points to, that's Defendant's Exhibit 109, please.
`Can you tell us what this is, Dr. Bretschneider?
`This is a technical innovation award from Lightfair
`A.
`International from 2003.
`Q.
`What is Lightfair?
`A.
`Lightfair is one of the largest lighting trade shows in
`the world.
`At least it's the largest in the U.S.
`Q.
`And again, can you tell us when this award was given?
`A.
`2003.
`Q.
`What product is specifically called out as winning this
`award?
`A.
`They give a specific product number, I'm not going to go
`through that, but it's for a warm white LED.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And have you looked at what this specific warm
`white LED product is?
`A.
`Yes, I have.
`Q.
`And what did you find out?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46137 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 26
`
`16
`
`size, was anyone skeptical about combining Dr. Nakamura's blue
`LED with a yellow phosphor in controlling the particle size?
`A.
`No.
`Again, this was very common in the phosphor industry.
`Q.
`Okay.
`If we go to the next factor, which is long-felt
`need for the claimed subject matter, can you remind us when the
`red LED came out?
`A.
`In the early 1960s.
`Q.
`And when the green LED came out?
`A.
`By 1970.
`Q.
`And then how long did it take to come up with the blue
`LED?
`More than 20 years.
`A.
`Approximately what year did the blue LED get released?
`Q.
`It was released 1993.
`A.
`And then the white LED came out when?
`Q.
`Just after that.
`A.
`So what does that tell you about long-felt need?
`Q.
`The real need, the desire was for the blue LED, and I
`A.
`believe that was stated in the Nobel Prize award.
`Q.
`Okay.
`The last, the last secondary consideration is
`simultaneous invention.
`Can you first just begin by telling us
`why simultaneous invention is important in the obviousness
`analysis?
`A.
`If different independent groups come up with something at
`the same time, then that's a good indication that everyone had
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46138 Filed 07/09/15 Page 6 of 26
`
`17
`
`the idea and it's not really a novel invention.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And so we go on to slide 178.
`What are you showing
`here?
`We have the
`A.
`The Baretz patent was filed in March of '96.
`Nakamura article in February '97, was when it was presented,
`and the Schlotter paper was published April of '97, as well.
`Q.
`So what are your conclusions about simultaneous invention?
`A.
`These are three independent groups, actually, all on
`different continents, that came up with the idea essentially
`the same time.
`Q.
`So what does that tell you about obviousness?
`A.
`It was obvious.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Let's switch, switch gears and talk about
`enablement, which is, can you remind us what the enablement
`requirement is, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`I'll quote, because I think there is some legal
`interpretation here:
`To be enabling the specification of a
`patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and
`use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue
`experimentation.
`Q.
`So this is looking at the specification of the patent, is
`that right, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`This is different from the prior art that we talked about
`all day yesterday?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46139 Filed 07/09/15 Page 7 of 26
`
`18
`
`Correct.
`A.
`And are you aware of certain factors that are considered
`Q.
`when determining if there is undue experimentation,
`Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes.
`I won't read through them, but these are what are
`listed here.
`Q.
`And these are the -- these factors, these factors that are
`on slide 186 are the factors that go into the analysis for
`undue experimentation?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`Did you consider these factors in forming your opinions on
`enablement?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`So let's go to Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, which is the '960
`patent.
`
`If we go to Claim 14, if we go to the fourth
`limitation, can you highlight that one, please?
`Sorry.
`You're right.
`So can you tell us what's required by this
`limitation, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`This says that the phosphor material has to have a peak
`wavelength between 510 and 600 nanometers.
`Q.
`So the full scope of this claim is from what to what,
`Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`From green to orange.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46140 Filed 07/09/15 Page 8 of 26
`
`19
`
`And it needs to go, start at what wavelength?
`Q.
`510 nanometers.
`A.
`To be able to make a fluorescent material that goes all
`Q.
`the way up to what wavelength?
`A.
`600 nanometers.
`Q.
`So did you review the '960 patent in forming your
`opinions?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`What does the '960 patent say about how to increase the
`wavelength of a YAG-based phosphor?
`A.
`They say to add gadolinium.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And what's the only phosphor, YAG-based phosphor
`described by the '960 patent that would potentially have a peak
`wavelength at the end of this claim range from about 590 to 600
`nanometers?
`A.
`That would be all gadolinium, no yttrium, what we call
`GAG.
`So it's -- what's the formula for GAG?
`Q.
`GD3 AL5 O12.
`A.
`Now, in forming your opinions did you review any test
`Q.
`results from the inventors to see if they were able to obtain
`these wavelengths from 590 to 600 nanometers through full
`substitution with gadolinium?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`Okay.
`What did you -- what specifically did you review
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46141 Filed 07/09/15 Page 9 of 26
`
`20
`
`from the inventors?
`A.
`There were lab notebooks and also reports to Nichia
`management.
`Let's take a look at some of those reports, if we
`Q.
`Okay.
`could call up Plaintiff's Exhibit 380.
`Can you tell us -- and maybe highlight the top
`half of this first page here?
`Can you tell us what this document is?
`This is an engineering monthly report from Mr. Noguchi to
`A.
`the management at Nichia.
`Q.
`Can you remind us who Mr. Noguchi is?
`A.
`He is one of the inventors on the two patents we have been
`discussing.
`Q.
`And the date of this report that Mr. Noguchi made to his
`management is?
`A.
`July 29th, 1996.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And did you review any results that are contained
`in this monthly report, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes, I did.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Let's go to the second page, if we could.
`the bottom part.
`Okay.
`So what kind of experiments did Mr. Noguchi do as
`reported in this monthly report?
`A.
`He was changing composition of YAG and looking at the
`effect it had on the phosphor.
`
`Pull up
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46142 Filed 07/09/15 Page 10 of 26
`
`21
`
`And so we see down here a compound at the bottom called
`Q.
`GD10.
`Do you see that?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What compound is that?
`A.
`That would be GAG.
`Q.
`And what did Mr. Noguchi, the named inventor of the '925
`and '960 patent, say about GAG?
`A.
`That it didn't emit light.
`Q.
`So were the inventors able to achieve wavelengths of 590
`to 600 nanometers with full substitution of gadolinium?
`A.
`No, they weren't.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So if we can go back to Claim 14 of the '960
`patent.
`Again, just focusing on this limitation.
`Did Mr. Noguchi or any of the other inventors
`report their results about GAG in the body of the patent?
`A.
`No, they didn't.
`Q.
`So if the inventors were unable to make GAG emit light, is
`there any other teaching in the '960 patent of a phosphor that
`would emit light in the range from about 590 to 600 nanometers?
`A.
`No, there is not.
`Q.
`So what's your opinion about whether the inventors enabled
`the full scope of Claim 14, in particular, this limitation?
`MR. RIZZI:
`Objection, your Honor.
`Can I do
`
`a side bar?
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46143 Filed 07/09/15 Page 11 of 26
`
`22
`
`(Side bar discussion held off the record)
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`You may continue.
`(By Mr. Traupman, continuing)
`So again, my question,
`Q.
`Dr. Bretschneider, is what is your opinion about whether the
`inventors enabled the full scope of Claim 14 of the '960
`patent, in particular, the limitation requiring that the
`fluorescent material as a peak wavelength existing around
`510 to 600 nanometers?
`A.
`They didn't.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So all the other dependent claims that depend from
`Claim 14, other than Claim 16, also contain the limitation
`here that's highlighted on the screen, is that right,
`Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes, I believe so.
`Q.
`So is your opinion on enablement any different for any of
`those dependent claims than what you just gave for Claim 14?
`A.
`No.
`Let's turn now to the '925 patent and let's take a
`Q.
`Okay.
`look at Claim 3, please.
`And this is, we have looked at this limitation
`yesterday, is that right, or this formula here in Claim 3, is
`that right, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes, a few times.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So hopefully I won't have to belabor the issue too
`much, but can you remind us what compound is covered if we
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46144 Filed 07/09/15 Page 12 of 26
`
`28
`
`that the combination of a blue InGaN chip was not obvious in
`1996, and I just want to give you an opportunity to respond to
`each of these points.
`So the first one is:
`
`YAG was not widely used in
`
`1996.
`
`What do you say to that?
`I disagree.
`Bell Labs was using it when Pinnow was doing
`A.
`his work.
`Hoffman was using it at GE.
`And the Philips patent,
`they were using it as well.
`Q.
`Bell Labs, GE, Philips, what kind of companies are they?
`A.
`Bell Labs at the time was the largest private research
`company in the world.
`And GE and Philips are two of the
`largest lighting companies in the world.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So the second point here is:
`an LED light source.
`What do you say to that?
`YAG only works with blue light and we didn't have a blue
`A.
`LED before.
`You can't use it with something that's not
`invented yet.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And so the next one here is:
`primary wavelength converter.
`What do you say to that?
`I disagree.
`The Pinnow patent was the first application
`A.
`I'm aware of.
`You had a blue laser and YAG.
`Q.
`Okay. Remind us what date, approximately, if you can't
`
`Never before used in
`
`First used as a
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46145 Filed 07/09/15 Page 13 of 26
`
`29
`
`We can probably call
`
`remember exactly, the Pinnow patent was.
`it up.
`I think it's PX12.
`Yes.
`A.
`It issued in October of 1972 and was filed in May of 1969.
`Q.
`And, again, how is YAG being used in the Pinnow patent?
`A.
`It's converting blue light from the laser into yellow.
`Q.
`And is that a primary wavelength converter?
`A.
`Yes.
`No
`Q.
`So the last point here from Mr. Rizzi's opening is:
`appreciation of YAG's durability and resistance to harsh LED
`environment.
`
`What do you say about that?
`I completely disagree with that, because the applications
`A.
`we discussed are all much harsher environments than an LED.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Well, let's look briefly at what the inventors say
`about harsh LED environment.
`If you go to the '925 patent, Plaintiff's
`Exhibit 1, Column 13, please, Lines 6 to 21, as far as
`temperature goes, what do the inventors of the Nichia patent
`say about the harsh LED environment?
`A.
`They say that the temperature can be as high as 200
`degrees C, that's about 400 Fahrenheit.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And how does that compare to the environments that
`YAG was used in prior to the filing date of the '925 patent?
`A.
`It's a much lower temperature.
`Hoffman specifically
`reported YAG working at 300 degrees C, which again is about
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46146 Filed 07/09/15 Page 14 of 26
`
`30
`
`600 Fahrenheit, so it's quite a bit hotter.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And if -- so that's one part of the harsh LED
`environment.
`Let's look at another part of the harsh LED
`environment that the inventors talk about.
`If we can go to
`Column 3, Lines 5 to 21.
`What do the inventors say about the harsh LED
`environment in terms of intensity of the light?
`A.
`If we can highlight here, they say 30 to 40 times that of
`sunlight.
`And how does that intensity of light compare to,
`Q.
`Okay.
`again, the earlier uses of YAG that we discussed yesterday?
`A.
`It's much lower.
`Q.
`And can you specifically tell us where YAG might have been
`used in a -- with a light source that's more intense than 30 to
`40 times sunlight?
`A.
`Pinnow was using an industrial blue laser and the
`intensity would have been anywhere from 50 to 600 times that of
`sunlight.
`
`So, thank you, Dr. Bretschneider.
`MR. TRAUPMAN:
`I have no further questions.
`Your Honor, if I could just get a list of exhibits
`that I went through in the last two days to move into evidence
`now, or should I just handle that at a break?
`How would you
`like to do that?
`THE COURT:
`
`It doesn't matter.
`
`Is there going to
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46147 Filed 07/09/15 Page 15 of 26
`
`35
`
`So twice you have worked for Emcore?
`Q.
`You could say that, yes.
`A.
`Now, the defendant in this case is Nichia, my client,
`Q.
`right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`I want to go back to your CV and ask you some questions
`about that.
`A.
`Okay.
`Q.
`You graduated undergrade in 1989, is that right?
`A.
`Yes, that's correct.
`Q.
`And when did you start your work on your Ph.D. thesis?
`A.
`In 1989.
`Q.
`And that was at the University of Florida?
`A.
`Yes, that's correct.
`Q.
`And when did you complete your work on your Ph.D. thesis?
`A.
`I defended it in 1997.
`Q.
`When did you complete writing your dissertation?
`A.
`That was in 1997.
`Q.
`So you had not been conferred a Ph.D. in 1996, correct?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`As of 1996, you had only a Bachelors degree?
`A.
`Correct.
`Q.
`And as of July 1996, you were still in school, right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`And you had no significant industry experience at that
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46148 Filed 07/09/15 Page 16 of 26
`
`36
`
`time, right?
`A.
`There were interactions with industry in the Phosphor
`Technology Center of Excellence and I did spend a semester
`working with Bell Labs, if you would like to consider that
`industry.
`Q.
`One semester at Bell Labs?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`All the other time you were in school, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Thank you.
`What was the first topic of your Ph.D. thesis at
`the University of Florida?
`A.
`It was trying to make a blue LED using zinc selenide.
`Q.
`A blue LED?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And Nichia was trying to make a blue LED, right, at the
`same time?
`As well as others.
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Were you successful?
`A.
`We did get some results.
`worth commercializing.
`Q.
`Nichia was more successful, right?
`A.
`As well as Toyoda Gosei, yes.
`Q.
`And Nichia, when its blue LED was announced, what
`happened?
`
`I wouldn't say it was anything
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46149 Filed 07/09/15 Page 17 of 26
`
`50
`
`So how long did it take you to review 150
`
`Apologize, my handwriting is not very good.
`And you reviewed an extensive amount of prior art,
`right, references?
`A.
`Again, many of them I have been familiar with from before
`the case.
`Q.
`How many did you review in this case?
`A.
`I don't recall an exact number.
`If we look at your
`Q.
`Well, I think you said more than 150.
`expert report, aren't there more than 150 references listed
`there?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Right, okay.
`references?
`A.
`Again, if you're talking -- some of these I looked over
`briefly because I have long familiarity with them prior to this
`case.
`Some can be a few minutes.
`Some might take longer.
`I
`can't recall an exact number.
`Q.
`What's your estimate of the total?
`A.
`I honestly can't make a good estimate.
`Q.
`No estimate.
`Well, did you spend more than 100 hours?
`A.
`I don't think so.
`Q.
`Less than 100 hours?
`A.
`30 to 40.
`Q.
`30 to 40?
`A.
`I'm guessing.
`
`I don't have an exact number.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46150 Filed 07/09/15 Page 18 of 26
`
`56
`
`So in order to form your opinions in this case you
`Okay.
`Q.
`understand you had to apply all those references to the
`specific claims at issue here, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And that included a lot of work preparing those claim
`charts?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`How many claims, 25, at least, claim charts in your
`report?
`A.
`Again, if you want me to reference, yes, there were a lot
`of claims.
`Q.
`And to do that you had to actually analyze each reference
`and compare it to each claim, right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Because the work has to be done on a claim-by-claim basis?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And had you prepared claim charts for any of these
`references before your work on this case?
`A.
`I have prepared a number of claim charts for any number of
`patents over the years.
`Q.
`No, sir, I'm asking you, had you prepared claim charts
`applying any of the references you contend invalidate the
`patents, the Nichia patents?
`Before your work on this case,
`had you prepared any claim charts?
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46151 Filed 07/09/15 Page 19 of 26
`
`68
`
`Can I have a side bar, please?
`MR. TRAUPMAN:
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`(Side bar discussion held off the record).
`THE COURT:
`All right, Mr. Rizzi, you may
`
`continue.
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI:
`(By Mr. Rizzi, continuing)
`So you agree,
`Q.
`Dr. Bretschneider, that as of 1996 you did not meet Professor
`Schubert's definition of the level of skill in the art,
`correct?
`A.
`A level of ordinary skill, no, I did not.
`Q.
`Let's look at your definition.
`Next slide, please.
`Your definition is slightly different.
`And you
`say a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a
`Bachelors in engineering, material science, chemistry or
`physics, with roughly four to five years or more of experience
`working in the field of light-emitting diode technology.
`Let's
`stop there, because then there is an "or."
`That first prong, as of July 1996, you did not
`meet that prong, either, did you?
`A.
`Actually, I did.
`Q.
`Your testimony -- well, you got your Bachelors in '89?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And then you started your Ph.D. when?
`A.
`'89.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46152 Filed 07/09/15 Page 20 of 26
`
`70
`
`your Ph.D. until 1997, right?
`A.
`That's when I defended and received my degree, yes.
`Q.
`In fact, you hadn't even finished writing your
`dissertation until 1997, right?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`So you didn't have a Ph.D. in July of '96, did you?
`A.
`No, I didn't.
`Q.
`Okay.
`So you don't meet this definition either?
`A.
`Actually, to be very specific on this, it says experience
`working in the field.
`It doesn't say industrial experience or
`commercial experience.
`Q.
`But you had no industrial -- well, sorry.
`of industry experience at this time, right?
`A.
`That's a fair enough characterization.
`Q.
`Thank you.
`A.
`Up to a year.
`Q.
`Now yesterday you gave a lot of testimony about phosphors,
`right, phosphors used in LEDs?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`How phosphors are made?
`A.
`I didn't talk about how phosphors were made.
`how -- sorry, I was thinking about another issue.
`phosphors have been made in the past.
`Q.
`Now, Dr. Bretschneider, you have never actually made a
`phosphor, have you?
`
`Oh, sorry,
`Yes, how
`
`Two semesters
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46153 Filed 07/09/15 Page 21 of 26
`
`102
`
`Patent Office, right?
`A.
`There were a few, yes.
`Q.
`The only YAG references you testified to -- strike that.
`Let me go back.
`So yesterday -- I want to talk a little bit more
`Yesterday you said it was discovered in 1967.
`about YAG.
`A.
`To the best of my knowledge, yes, that is the first paper
`I have seen.
`Q.
`And its properties were well known?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And I don't have the transcript, but my notes indicate
`that you said it was well known that it was yellow, it
`responded strongly to blue light, things of that nature?
`A.
`Yes.
`And the only YAG references you testified to for
`Q.
`Okay.
`those characteristics were Hoffman, the two Blasse and Bril
`references, Pinnow, and Philips, is that right?
`A.
`I believe there was a Blasse and Bril, as well.
`Q.
`Two Blasse and Bril.
`And Hoffman 143.
`Two Blasse and
`Bril, 132 and 148, Plaintiff's Exhibits, Pinnow is 144, and
`Philips, P14, right?
`A.
`Yes, that's what we discussed yesterday.
`Q.
`And as we discussed before, none of those references
`showed a radiation density of more than 500 watts per meters
`squared, right?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46154 Filed 07/09/15 Page 22 of 26
`
`103
`
`Actually, that's incorrect.
`A.
`Why is that incorrect?
`Q.
`Because the Pinnow reference, they looked at an average.
`A.
`If you look at it, they say that you need 1 to 2 two watts of
`laser power per meters squared of screen, and you don't shine
`the laser on the entire screen.
`They give you some information
`on how well they can focus it and when you do that calculation
`it is anywhere from 50 to over 600 times the intensity of
`sunlight.
`
`Also, for Hoffman it was used for high-pressure
`mercury vapor lamps, which is a fairly standard format, I
`believe it's a BT-57 format, available in powers up to 1,000
`watts, which would be somewhere -- it's not as high, but around
`ten times the intensity of sunlight.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Let's -- you mentioned Pinnow.
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Is what you just referenced, is that actually described in
`Pinnow?
`They give the
`A.
`Between the patent and the article, yes.
`laser power, again, and the spot size, so a straightforward
`calculation.
`Q.
`The only number in Pinnow, though, was the one we talked
`about earlier, right?
`The calculation wasn't performed in Pinnow,
`
`correct?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46155 Filed 07/09/15 Page 23 of 26
`
`126
`
`I think it's the definition of
`Mr. Rizzi posted?
`Dr. Bretschneider's definition of a person of skill in the art.
`So do you remember when Counsel for Nichia put
`this slide up a little while ago, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`He kept talking about industry experience, repeated that
`several times.
`Does your definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art say anything about industry experience?
`A.
`No, it doesn't.
`Q.
`What does it talk about?
`A.
`It just talks about experience working in the field of
`light-emitting diode technology.
`Q.
`When was the first time you started working in the field
`of light-emitting diode technology?
`A.
`1989.
`Q.
`So all told, how many years of experience do you have
`working in the field of light-emitting diode technology?
`A.
`Although I hate to admit it, more than half my life.
`We're going on 26 years now.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Mr. Rizzi also asked a bunch of questions about the
`relative timing of when certain events happened versus what
`you did versus what the lawyers, myself and the rest of
`Everlight's lawyers, did.
`Now, first I just want to make sure it's clear,
`before anyone or any lawyer for Everlight ever contacted 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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46156 Filed 07/09/15 Page 24 of 26
`
`132
`
`Yes.
`MR. HANNA:
`So even taking May 14, 1997, as the date the parties have
`Q.
`stipulated to, how does that date compare to the filing date of
`the '925 patent?
`A.
`That's before.
`Q.
`Now, Mr. Rizzi also asked you a bunch of questions about
`the relative dates of the Schlotter publication versus when
`Nichia publicly announced its release of the white LED.
`Do you
`remember that?
`A.
`Yes, I do.
`Q.
`So if we can go to the end of the second -- it's only two
`pages -- the second page of this document, and pull up the
`references, please.
`Can you tell us what the references are for
`Number 3 and Number 4?
`A.
`These are references to patent applications that were
`filed describing the work.
`I believe that's actually called
`out at the last part of the article.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And so if we can take a look at Plaintiff's
`Exhibit 119, go to the second page, can you tell us what this
`document is?
`A.
`This is one of the patent applications that was
`referenced.
`And the first named inventor, what's the name of
`Q.
`Okay.
`the first named inventor there?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46157 Filed 07/09/15 Page 25 of 26
`
`133
`
`Schlotter.
`A.
`And how does that compare to the first named author of the
`Q.
`Schlotter reference?
`A.
`They're the same.
`Q.
`And if we look up a little higher, it says application
`date.
`What's the date of the application?
`A.
`September 20th, 1996.
`Q.
`Okay.
`Now, how does that compare to the references that
`Mr. Rizzi was pointing you to about when Nichia disclosed their
`white LED?
`I don't remember the exact
`A.
`I believe that was before.
`date they issued the press release.
`Q.
`Okay.
`And if we go to -- sorry, if we go to the third
`page of this document -- well, second page after the -- that
`one right there.
`Thank you.
`So if we go to the top right, top on the right,
`
`please.
`
`What phosphor was Mr. Schlotter and his colleagues
`using on September 20, 1996?
`A.
`This states YAG.
`Q.
`And if we go a little further down in this column, the
`paragraph that begins with the semiconductor element, if you
`could just pull the rest of that.
`What type of semiconductor was Mr. Schlotter using
`on September 20, 1996?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 573-8, PageID.46158 Filed 07/09/15 Page 26 of 26
`
`134
`
`Gallium nitride.
`A.
`Again --
`Q.
`Gallium nitrite-based, sorry.
`A.
`And again, remind us what's claimed by the '925 patent?
`Q.
`Gallium nitride.
`A.
`All right.
`And let's just now go look at the cover page
`Q.
`of the '925 patent.
`So, and Mr. Rizzi -- if you could pull up the
`references cited, remember Mr. Rizzi showed you the references
`cited, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes.
`So it's over two columns, so if you could maybe put
`Q.
`Okay.
`them side by side, please.
`The references start at cite --
`it's all on the first page here, but -- we will get it.
`Bear
`with us one second.
`All the way down.
`That's perfect.
`Thank
`you.
`
`So these are the references that were before the
`patent examiner; is that right, Dr. Bretschneider?
`A.
`Yes, that's correct.
`Q.
`Where is the Baretz patent listed here?
`A.
`It's not.
`Q.
`Where is the Schlotter paper?
`A.
`It's not referenced here.
`Q.
`Now, Mr. Rizzi pointed out how the Pinnow reference was --
`is referenced here, it's right there, the first one, Pinnow,
`
`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
`
`
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
