`
`CERTIFIED COPY
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`REDLINE DETECTION, LLC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`STAR ENVIROTECH,
`Patent Owner
`
`INC.
`
`Case IPR2013—00106
`
`U.S. Patent 6,526,808
`
`DEPOSITION OF M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`December 20, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O BARKLEY
`YEARS
`Courthparters
`®Tami L. Le, CSR NO. 8716
`barkley.com
`3 6 8 4 4 5
`(858) 455-5444 San Diego
`(949) 955-0400 lrvine
`(310) 207-8000 Los Angeles
`(415) 433-5777 San Francisco
`(951) 686-0606 Riverside
`(760) 322-2240 Palm Springs
`(916) 922-5777 Sacramento
`(408) 885-0550 San Jose
`(518) 490-1910 Albany
`(347) 821-4611 Brooklyn
`(318) 702-0202 Woodland Hills
`(212) 808-8500 New York City
`(702) 366-0500 Las Vegas
`(312) 319-5566 Chicago
`(516) 277-9494 Garden City
`(914) 510-9110 While Plains
`+852 3693 1522 Hong Kong
`+33 1 70 72 65 26 Paris
`+971 4 8137744 Dubai
`
`
`
`REDLINE EXHIBIT 1052
`Redline v. Star
`Trial IPR2013-00106
`
`p. 1052-1
`
`REDLINE EXHIBIT 1052
`Redline v. Star
`Trial IPR2013-00106
`p. 1052-1
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________________________
` 2
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 3 ____________________________
`
` 4
` REDLINE DETECTION, LLC.
` 5 Petitioner
`
` 6 v.
`
` 7 STAR ENVIROTECH, INC.
` Patent Owner
` 8
`
` 9 ______________________
`
`10 Case IPR2013-00106
` U.S. Patent 6,526,808
`11 ______________________
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14 Videotaped Deposition of M. DAVID
`
`15 CHECKEL, Ph.D., taken on behalf of the
`
`16 Petitioner, at 2040 Main Street,
`
`17 14th Floor, Irvine, California,
`
`18 commencing at 9:02 a.m., on Friday,
`
`19 December 20, 2013, before Tami L. Le,
`
`20 CSR No. 8716, RPR.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`1052-2
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
` 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
` 2
`
` 3 For the Petitioner Redline Detection, LLC:
`
` 4 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER
` BY: MATTHEW A. NEWBOLES, ESQ.
` 5 LOWELL ANDERSON, ESQ.
` 75 Enterprise
` 6 Suite 250
` Aliso Viejo, California 92656
` 7 949.855.1246
` mnewboles@stetinalaw.com
` 8 landerson@stetinalaw.com
`
` 9
` For the Patent Owner STAR EnviroTech, Inc.:
`10
` KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
`11 BY: JARED C. BUNKER, ESQ.
` 2040 Main Street
`12 14th Floor
` Irvine, California 92614
`13 949.760.0404
` jared.bunker@kmob.com
`14
`
`15 The Videographer:
`
`16 Kevin Wall
`
`17
` Also Present:
`18
` Jim Saffie
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`1052-3
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2 Deponent Examined By Page
`
` 3 M. David Checkel, Mr. Newboles 7, 235
` Ph.D.
` 4 Mr. Bunker 233
`
` 5
`
` 6 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:
`
` 7 1001 - United States Patent Pieroni et al, 77
` Patent No. US 6,526,808 B1, dated
` 8 Mar. 4, 2003, 16 pages
`
` 9 1005 - United States Patent Gilliam, Patent 113
` Number 5,107,696, dated Apr. 28, 1992,
`10 11 pages
`
`11 1008 - Patent Specification 1 240 867, 132
` Inventor William John Douglass Stoyle,
`12 5 pages
`
`13 1010 - Patent Specification, Inventor: Alfred 169
` John Pauley, 640,266, 6 pages
`14
` 1012 - United States Patent Swiatosz, 126
`15 4,303,397, Dec. 1, 1981, 8 pages
`
`16 1013 - Printout from the www.smokemachines.com 206
` website, "Applications for the Smoke
`17 Generator," 4 pages
`
`18 1014 - United States Patent Pieroni et al, 93
` Patent Number 5,922,944, dated Jul. 13,
`19 1999, 8 pages
`
`20 1050 - University of Alberta Flammability 218
` Hazards of Fuel System Leak Testing by
`21 Kevin Michael Frank, A thesis submitted
` to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and
`22 Research in partial fulfillment of the
` requirements for the degree of Master
`23 of Science, Department of Mechanical
` Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, Fall
`24 2006, 145 pages
`
`25
`
`4
`
`1052-4
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
` 1 I N D E X (Continued)
`
` 2 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION: Page
` (Continued)
` 3
` 1051 - Excerpt from Webster's New World 197
` 4 College Dictionary, Fourth Edition,
` 4 pages
` 5
` 2018 - Declaration of M. David Checkel, PH.D., 17
` 6 84 pages
`
` 7 2021 - SAE Technical Paper Series 21
` 2007-01-1235, Fuel Tank and Charcoal
` 8 Canister Fire Hazards during EVAP
` System Leak Testing, 11 pages
` 9
` 2023 - "Oxygenated Fuel Considerations for 54
`10 In-Shop Fuel System Leak Testing
` Hazards," by K.M. Frank and M.D.
`11 Checkel, 11 pages
`
`12 2041 - Excerpt from Webster's Third New 171
` International Dictionary, 3 pages
`13
` 2042 - Excerpt from Random House Webster's 171
`14 College Dictionary, 3 pages
`
`15
`
`16 WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER
`
`17 Page Line
`
`18 15 11
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`5
`
`1052-5
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
` 1 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2013
`
` 2 9:02 A.M.
`
` 3 oOo
`
` 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name is
`
` 5 Kevin Wall. I am a videographer associated with Barkley
`
` 6 Court Reporters, located at 2040 Main Street, Irvine,
`
` 7 California 92614.
`
` 8 The date is December 20th, 2013. The time is
`
` 9 9:02 a.m.
`
`09:02 10 This deposition is taking place at 2040 Main
`
`11 Street, Irvine, California 92614 in the matter of
`
`12 Redline Detection, LLC, versus STAR EnviroTech, Inc.,
`
`13 Case No. IPR2013-00106.
`
`14 This is the videotaped deposition of M. David
`
`09:03 15 Checkel, being taken on behalf of the petitioner.
`
`16 Will counsel for the parties please identify
`
`17 themselves.
`
`18 MR. NEWBOLES: Matt Newboles and Lowell
`
`19 Anderson for petitioner Redline Detection.
`
`09:03 20 MR. BUNKER: Jared Bunker from the law firm of
`
`21 Knobbe Martens on behalf of STAR EnviroTech and the
`
`22 witness, Dr. Checkel. Also attending is Jim Saffie from
`
`23 STAR EnviroTech.
`
`24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
`
`09:03 25 The court reporter may now swear in the
`
`6
`
`1052-6
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:03 1 witness.
`
` 2
`
` 3 M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.,
`
` 4 having been first duly sworn, was
`
`09:03 5 examined and testified as follows:
`
` 6
`
` 7 EXAMINATION
`
` 8 BY MR. NEWBOLES:
`
` 9 Q Sir, can you please state your name.
`
`09:03 10 A My full name is Michael David Checkel. I go as
`
`11 David Checkel.
`
`12 Q Could you please spell your last name?
`
`13 A I spell it C-H-E-C-K-E-L.
`
`14 Q And you hold a Ph.D.?
`
`09:03 15 A That's correct.
`
`16 Q I'll refer to you as Dr. Checkel. Is that okay
`
`17 for you?
`
`18 A That's fine.
`
`19 Q Excellent.
`
`09:04 20 Just so you're aware, Dr. Checkel, the
`
`21 deposition testimony you're giving today is the same
`
`22 testimony and has the same force and effect as if you
`
`23 were in a court of law.
`
`24 Do you understand that?
`
`09:04 25 A I do.
`
`7
`
`1052-7
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:04 1 Q You are sworn to tell the truth under penalty
`
` 2 of perjury.
`
` 3 Are you aware of that?
`
` 4 A Yes.
`
`09:04 5 Q Procedurally, I will ask you a question and in
`
` 6 turn I will expect your answer. And in answering my
`
` 7 question, please try to state clearly "yes" or "no" to
`
` 8 make it easier for the court reporter.
`
` 9 Do you understand that?
`
`09:04 10 A I do.
`
`11 Q It is also best if you allow me to finish my
`
`12 question before answering. If you don't understand a
`
`13 question, please let me know. If you answer the
`
`14 question, I'm going to assume that you understand that.
`
`09:04 15 Okay?
`
`16 A Okay.
`
`17 Q Also, because this deposition is being -- is
`
`18 taken in connection with an Inter Partes Review or IPR
`
`19 proceeding, special rules apply. Once your
`
`09:04 20 cross-examination has commenced and until your
`
`21 cross-examination is concluded, your counsel shall not
`
`22 consult or confer with you regarding the substance of
`
`23 your testimony already given or anticipated to be given
`
`24 except for the purpose of conferring with you so as to
`
`09:04 25 determine whether or not to assert a privilege to keep
`
`8
`
`1052-8
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:05 1 you from testifying.
`
` 2 Do you understand that?
`
` 3 A I do understand that.
`
` 4 Q And your counsel can confer with you for
`
`09:05 5 purposes of deciding whether or not or how to comply
`
` 6 with an order from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
` 7 Do you understand that?
`
` 8 A Okay.
`
` 9 Q Your counsel cannot suggest to you the manner
`
`09:05 10 in which any question should be answer.
`
`11 Do you understand that?
`
`12 A (Witness nods head.)
`
`13 Q Sorry --
`
`14 A I just nodded.
`
`09:05 15 Q Okay.
`
`16 A Yes.
`
`17 Q "Yes" or "no"?
`
`18 A You can keep reminding me.
`
`19 Q If at any time during the deposition you need
`
`09:05 20 to take a break, please let me know. We can accommodate
`
`21 that. However, we will not take a break if a question
`
`22 is pending and your attorney cannot initiate a private
`
`23 conference with you or call for a break while a question
`
`24 is pending except for the purposes I just mentioned.
`
`09:05 25 Do you understand that?
`
`9
`
`1052-9
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:05 1 A I understand, yes.
`
` 2 Q Okay. Have you ever been deposed before?
`
` 3 A Yes, I have.
`
` 4 Q In what matters have you been deposed?
`
`09:05 5 A In the United States, in a class action suit
`
` 6 on -- that related to lubrication of engines; and also
`
` 7 in a patent lawsuit in New York relating to hybrid
`
` 8 electric vehicles.
`
` 9 Q In any of those depositions, in terms of the
`
`09:06 10 subject matter, did those ever relate to the subject
`
`11 matter that we're going to be talking about today and
`
`12 specifically smoke machines and EVAP testing?
`
`13 A No, they didn't.
`
`14 Q Have you ever been deposed in connection with
`
`09:06 15 the use of smoke machines and detecting leaks in EVAP
`
`16 systems?
`
`17 A No, I haven't.
`
`18 Q Have you ever served as a consultant for STAR
`
`19 EnviroTech?
`
`09:06 20 A Yes, I have.
`
`21 Q What was the nature of that experience?
`
`22 A That's -- that's a short question with a long
`
`23 answer because I started working for Global Leak
`
`24 Detection, which is a company in Edmonton, Canada, on
`
`09:07 25 matters relating to leak machines, leak-testing
`
`10
`
`1052-10
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:07 1 machines. Over time, the principal of Global Leak
`
` 2 Detection became associated with STAR EnviroTech, so I
`
` 3 did a lot of projects that I was never certain who they
`
` 4 were for specifically, and basically I did a lot of
`
`09:07 5 small projects for STAR EnviroTech.
`
` 6 Q Can you describe the nature of those projects
`
` 7 starting at the beginning?
`
` 8 A The project specifically for STAR EnviroTech,
`
` 9 this had to do with things like testing the -- the
`
`09:07 10 amount of vapors being forced out of fuel systems,
`
`11 testing flow rates, testing the quality of smoke that
`
`12 was produced by different machines, some work on trying
`
`13 to write descriptions for patents, some work on
`
`14 evaluating the technologies compared with patents.
`
`09:08 15 Q When did you start working for Global Leak
`
`16 Protection (sic)?
`
`17 A Global Leak Detection would have been in the
`
`18 late 1990s.
`
`19 Q Do you have any more of a specific time frame?
`
`09:08 20 A No. I tried to look that up before this
`
`21 deposition. I suffered some computer losses over the
`
`22 past 15 years, so I don't have specific records.
`
`23 Q And can you recall when you started doing work
`
`24 for STAR EnviroTech?
`
`09:08 25 A Certainly by 2003. I was just looking back
`
`11
`
`1052-11
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:08 1 through -- through some records. Probably before that
`
` 2 because Global Leak Detection -- I don't know exactly
`
` 3 when they became associated with STAR EnviroTech, but it
`
` 4 was around that time.
`
`09:08 5 Q But you understand it's STAR EnviroTech, and
`
` 6 STAR EnviroTech is the parent company you're primarily
`
` 7 working for?
`
` 8 A That's correct.
`
` 9 Q And do you presently have an ongoing
`
`09:08 10 relationship with STAR EnviroTech?
`
`11 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`12 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Are you still doing
`
`13 consulting work for STAR EnviroTech?
`
`14 A Aside from appearing in this deposition, I'm
`
`09:09 15 not doing anything at the moment.
`
`16 Q When was the last time you did any work for
`
`17 STAR EnviroTech?
`
`18 A It would have been a little over two years ago.
`
`19 Q What was the nature of that work?
`
`09:09 20 A That -- I did some work on writing a patent
`
`21 description on a particular invention, I did some work
`
`22 on evaluating another machine relative to some patents.
`
`23 Q Have those patents issued?
`
`24 A I don't know.
`
`09:09 25 Q And you're responsible for drafting those
`
`12
`
`1052-12
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:09 1 patent applications?
`
` 2 MR. BUNKER: You can answer that "yes" or "no."
`
` 3 THE DEPONENT: No.
`
` 4 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Since you first started
`
`09:09 5 consulting for STAR EnviroTech, how much have you been
`
` 6 compensated by STAR EnviroTech?
`
` 7 A I don't have the number. It's not a large part
`
` 8 of my income.
`
` 9 Q Can you give me an approximation?
`
`09:10 10 A I would -- I would guess that it would be
`
`11 something like 30-, $50,000 total over a decade.
`
`12 Q And, again, the nature of the work that you did
`
`13 for STAR EnviroTech, other than the patent drafting, and
`
`14 you mentioned what you did for Global Leak Protection,
`
`09:10 15 is there anything else specific that you can recall?
`
`16 A We did a lot of lab testing for things like
`
`17 flammability formation inside fuel tanks. Some of this
`
`18 was for STAR EnviroTech, some of it was independent
`
`19 scientific curiosity-type research that we published.
`
`09:10 20 Q Okay. Was STAR funding that work?
`
`21 A They ended up funding -- basically providing us
`
`22 with equipment and wanting certain answers, and we then
`
`23 did other work with the equipment.
`
`24 Q When you say looking for certain answers, can
`
`09:11 25 you be more specific?
`
`13
`
`1052-13
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:11 1 A The sort of work that we were doing was
`
` 2 literally to measure what flow rates would produce a
`
` 3 minimum or acceptable level of hazard and whether the
`
` 4 hazard would go away if we would use nitrogen.
`
`09:11 5 The scientific curiosity work was to -- was to
`
` 6 work at levels that produced a hazard obviously, and to
`
` 7 try and expand the envelope of the work.
`
` 8 Q And was this all -- this research you're
`
` 9 mentioning, was it done in connection with EVAP testing?
`
`09:11 10 A We did some -- some EVAP system testing in
`
`11 terms of fuel tank and leak detection testing. We did
`
`12 some testing on -- on charcoal canisters and the
`
`13 capability to actually evaluate the effectiveness of a
`
`14 charcoal canister.
`
`09:12 15 Q And when I use the word "EVAP" system, you
`
`16 understand what I'm referring to?
`
`17 A Yes, I do. I hope I understand -- I hope we
`
`18 both have the same understanding.
`
`19 Q EVAP systems as used in connection with motor
`
`09:12 20 vehicles --
`
`21 A That's right.
`
`22 Q -- you have an understanding of what that is?
`
`23 A Yes.
`
`24 Q Okay. What did you do to prepare for today's
`
`09:12 25 deposition?
`
`14
`
`1052-14
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:12 1 A I read through the report that I had written
`
` 2 and looked over the references again.
`
` 3 Q The references that you mention in your
`
` 4 declaration, which we'll get to, you've looked at -- you
`
`09:12 5 looked at all those?
`
` 6 A That's right.
`
` 7 Q Any other documents that you reviewed prior to
`
` 8 your deposition today?
`
` 9 MR. BUNKER: You can answer that "yes" or "no."
`
`09:12 10 THE DEPONENT: Sorry. Yes.
`
`11 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Can you describe the nature
`
`12 of those documents?
`
`13 MR. BUNKER: I'm going to instruct the witness
`
`14 not to answer. It's our position that the selection of
`
`09:12 15 which documents we showed and didn't show to Dr. Checkel
`
`16 is work product.
`
`17 However, if it would help, I will represent
`
`18 that Dr. Checkel was not shown any documents that
`
`19 weren't cited in the declaration or have been produced
`
`09:13 20 in this proceeding.
`
`21 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Did you meet with STAR
`
`22 EnviroTech's counsel prior to your deposition today?
`
`23 A Yes, I did.
`
`24 Q And which counsel did you meet with?
`
`09:13 25 A Jared Bunker.
`
`15
`
`1052-15
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:13 1 Q Anyone else other than Mr. Bunker?
`
` 2 A No.
`
` 3 Q How long did you meet with Mr. Bunker?
`
` 4 A I met with him on both yesterday and the day
`
`09:13 5 before.
`
` 6 Q And in terms of the total time you spent
`
` 7 preparing for your deposition with Mr. Bunker, can you
`
` 8 tell me how much time you spent?
`
` 9 A Approximately 12 hours.
`
`09:13 10 Q And did you spend any time on your own
`
`11 preparing for this deposition?
`
`12 A I spent some time rereading my report.
`
`13 Q Approximation as to the amount of time you
`
`14 spent?
`
`09:14 15 A Four hours.
`
`16 Q And other than your counsel, did you discuss
`
`17 this deposition with anyone else?
`
`18 A No, I haven't.
`
`19 Q And prior to this matter that we're discussing
`
`09:14 20 today, this Inter Partes Review, have you had any
`
`21 previous association with the law firm of Knobbe Martens
`
`22 Olson & Bear?
`
`23 A No, I haven't.
`
`24 Q Have you had any previous association with any
`
`09:14 25 of the attorneys of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear?
`
`16
`
`1052-16
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:14 1 A No, I haven't.
`
` 2 Q All right. Dr. Checkel, at this time I'm going
`
` 3 to hand you Exhibit 2018 --
`
` 4 Looks like you already have one there, but I'm
`
`09:14 5 going to give you another one anyway.
`
` 6 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2018 was marked for
`
` 7 identification.)
`
` 8 (Document handed to counsel and the deponent.)
`
` 9 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: -- which is your declaration
`
`09:14 10 that was submitted in this Inter Partes Review.
`
`11 Dr. Checkel, are you familiar with this
`
`12 document?
`
`13 A Yes, I am.
`
`14 Q If you could turn to the last page of that
`
`09:15 15 document, please.
`
`16 A (Witness complies.)
`
`17 Q Can you let me know if that's your signature.
`
`18 A That is my signature.
`
`19 Q Are you responsible for drafting this document?
`
`09:15 20 A Yes, I am.
`
`21 Q Did anyone -- did anyone else assist you with
`
`22 drafting this document?
`
`23 A Yes, I received some assistance on things like
`
`24 the legal terms and definitions as well as some actual
`
`09:15 25 formatting assistance, putting the thing together in the
`
`17
`
`1052-17
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:15 1 end.
`
` 2 Q And who assisted you with that process?
`
` 3 A That was through Knobbe Martens.
`
` 4 Q Any specific attorney?
`
`09:15 5 A I was working with Jared Bunker.
`
` 6 Q Referring now to Page 5 of your declaration and
`
` 7 specifically Paragraph 13, if I could direct your
`
` 8 attention there, please.
`
` 9 A (Witness complies.)
`
`09:15 10 Q You mention that, quote:
`
`11 "...gasoline fuels generally have
`
`12 several important properties, including
`
`13 combustibility and volatility," end
`
`14 quote; correct?
`
`09:16 15 A That's correct.
`
`16 Q And on Page 6 of your declaration,
`
`17 Paragraph 14, you mention that gasoline has several
`
`18 distinct hazards; correct?
`
`19 A That's correct.
`
`09:16 20 Q Do you think that it's common knowledge to the
`
`21 general public that gasoline is highly combustible?
`
`22 A Yes, it is.
`
`23 Q And do you think it is also common knowledge to
`
`24 the general public and, again, anybody who's ever pumped
`
`09:16 25 gasoline, that gasoline's combustibility and volatility
`
`18
`
`1052-18
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:16 1 creates a fire hazard?
`
` 2 A I think that's well understood.
`
` 3 Q And that gasoline can cause an explosion?
`
` 4 A I think so.
`
`09:16 5 Q And based on your everyday experience, is it
`
` 6 true that most gasoline stations have warning signs
`
` 7 about the combustibility of gasoline?
`
` 8 A I'm sure most of them do.
`
` 9 Q Okay. Based on your personal experience?
`
`09:16 10 A Yes.
`
`11 Q You've seen those before?
`
`12 A Uh-huh.
`
`13 Q And gas stations usually post warning signs
`
`14 that gasoline can explode, is that -- do you have any
`
`09:17 15 experience seeing that before?
`
`16 A I'm trying to think about the word "explode,"
`
`17 but they certainly have warnings about combustibility
`
`18 and fires.
`
`19 Q Okay. And would you agree that it would be
`
`09:17 20 understood by members of the general public that the
`
`21 fuel tank that holds the gas could be at risk for
`
`22 exploding or catching fire?
`
`23 A I agree.
`
`24 Q And if I could direct your attention to Page 15
`
`09:17 25 and specifically Paragraph 31 of your declaration,
`
`19
`
`1052-19
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:17 1 that's Exhibit 2018.
`
` 2 Let me know when you're there.
`
` 3 A Okay.
`
` 4 Q You mention that the fuel vapor concentration
`
`09:17 5 in a sealed gasoline tank vapor space can be diluted
`
` 6 into the flammable range by mixing the tank vapor space
`
` 7 with air or air-based smoke mixtures; correct?
`
` 8 A That's what it says, yes.
`
` 9 Q And that would occur during EVAP testing?
`
`09:17 10 A It can occur during EVAP testing.
`
`11 Q Does it occur during EVAP testing?
`
`12 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`13 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: It can occur?
`
`14 A It can occur. It depends how it's done.
`
`09:18 15 Q Can I please have you refer now to Paragraph 32
`
`16 of your declaration. And, in particular, the first
`
`17 sentence, that passage says, quote:
`
`18 "Leak testing in EVAP systems using
`
`19 air at even moderate leak detection
`
`09:18 20 flow rates (5 to 15 liters per minute
`
`21 or 0.20 to 0.5 cubic feet per minute)
`
`22 produces substantial amounts of
`
`23 flammable fluid (sic) inside the fuel
`
`24 tank, particularly for low-volatility
`
`09:18 25 fuel," end quote.
`
`20
`
`1052-20
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:18 1 MR. BUNKER: Mr. Newboles, I think you --
`
` 2 THE DEPONENT: I think you used the word
`
` 3 "fluid" instead of "volume."
`
` 4 MR. NEWBOLES: Did I use "volume"? Okay.
`
`09:18 5 I'm sorry. Could you read that into the
`
` 6 record.
`
` 7 A "Leak testing in EVAP systems
`
` 8 using air at even moderate leak
`
` 9 detection flow rates (5 to 15 liters
`
`09:18 10 per minute or .2 to .5 cubic feet per
`
`11 minute) produces substantial amounts of
`
`12 flammable volume inside the fuel tank,
`
`13 particularly for low-volatility fuel."
`
`14 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Thank you very much.
`
`09:19 15 Is that statement true and correct to the best
`
`16 of your knowledge?
`
`17 A It is.
`
`18 Q And in support of that passage, you rely on
`
`19 Exhibit 2021; correct?
`
`09:19 20 A That's right.
`
`21 Q Okay. At this time I'd like to hand you
`
`22 Exhibit 2021.
`
`23 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2021 was marked for
`
`24 identification.)
`
`09:19 25 (Document handed to counsel and the deponent.)
`
`21
`
`1052-21
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:19 1 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: Dr. Checkel, are you familiar
`
` 2 with this document?
`
` 3 A Yes, I am.
`
` 4 Q You coauthored the paper that is the subject of
`
`09:19 5 Exhibit 2021; correct?
`
` 6 A I did.
`
` 7 Q On Page 2 of Exhibit 2021, left-hand column, in
`
` 8 the paragraph right above In-Tank Vapor Behavior, do you
`
` 9 see that?
`
`09:20 10 A Yes, paragraph which starts "Leak testing" --
`
`11 (Simultaneous speaking.)
`
`12 Q "Leak testing" -- yes, thank you.
`
`13 Can you please read the second and third
`
`14 sentences of that paragraph.
`
`09:20 15 A The second sentence is:
`
`16 "The flow rate of typical 'smoke'
`
`17 leak detection equipment varies from
`
`18 5 liters per minute to 15 liters per
`
`19 minute," Reference 1. "The duration of
`
`09:20 20 the purge flow varies depending on the
`
`21 characteristics of the system under
`
`22 test, but usually ranges from 1 to 5
`
`23 minutes."
`
`24 Q Thank you.
`
`09:20 25 Are those sentences true and correct to the
`
`22
`
`1052-22
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:20 1 best of your knowledge?
`
` 2 A Yes, they are.
`
` 3 Q So that means typical smoke leak detection
`
` 4 equipment produces a flow rate from 5 liters per minute
`
`09:20 5 to 15 liters per minute and is run from 1 to 5 minutes
`
` 6 during leak testing a fuel tank; is that correct?
`
` 7 A That's correct.
`
` 8 Q Okay. And then over on Page 4, at the bottom
`
` 9 right-hand corner, there is a Results section. And in
`
`09:21 10 the second-to-last sentence in that second-to-last
`
`11 paragraph, the sentence starting with "Therefore" --
`
`12 Do you see what I'm referring to?
`
`13 -- could you please read that into the record?
`
`14 A Sorry. I'm thinking I should have brought my
`
`09:21 15 glasses.
`
`16 Q I'm sorry. I can try, but I can only hope that
`
`17 I can read this verbatim.
`
`18 A "Therefore, if the flow rate is
`
`19 limited to 10 liters per minute
`
`09:21 20 typical purge times less than 5
`
`21 minutes are safe if air is used as
`
`22 the carrier fluid. Lower volatility
`
`23 gasoline reached significant
`
`24 flammable volumes much earlier,
`
`09:21 25 shortly after 1 minute had elapsed."
`
`23
`
`1052-23
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:22 1 Q The sentence above the "Therefore, if the flow
`
` 2 rate is limited to 10 liters per minute typical purge
`
` 3 times less than 5 minutes are safe if air is used as the
`
` 4 carrier fluid," that's the sentence I'm focusing on.
`
`09:22 5 Is that sentence true and correct to the best
`
` 6 of your knowledge?
`
` 7 A Yeah, it's put in the -- in the perspective of
`
` 8 the previous sentence, which says:
`
` 9 (As read) "High volatility (RVP 90
`
`09:22 10 kil Pascal) gasoline did not form
`
`11 significant flammable vapor until 5
`
`12 minutes had elapsed. Therefore, if the
`
`13 flow rate is limited to 10 liters per
`
`14 minute typical purge times less than 5
`
`09:22 15 minutes are safe if air is used as the
`
`16 carrier fluid."
`
`17 Q So is it correct to say that if you have a flow
`
`18 rate of 10 liters per minute and are operating that flow
`
`19 rate for five minutes or less through a fuel tank, is
`
`09:22 20 that completely safe?
`
`21 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`22 THE DEPONENT: Again, putting it in
`
`23 perspective, with a high volatility gasoline, it is
`
`24 acceptably safe. And the next sentence points out that
`
`09:22 25 lower volatility gasoline is unsafe, reached significant
`
`24
`
`1052-24
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:23 1 flammable volumes shortly after one minute had elapsed.
`
` 2 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: So while you say, in the
`
` 3 first sentence of Paragraph 32 of your declaration, that
`
` 4 using air and leak testing EVAP systems with a flow rate
`
`09:23 5 of 5 to 15 liters per minute produces substantial
`
` 6 amounts of flammable volume, is it also correct to say
`
` 7 that, per your Exhibit 2021, that if you have a flow
`
` 8 rate of 10 liters per minute and are operating at a flow
`
` 9 rate of 5 minutes or less, that is completely safe?
`
`09:23 10 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`11 THE DEPONENT: The -- each of those sentences
`
`12 can be true, but it has to be taken in the context of
`
`13 what the fuel volatility is. That's why there's a large
`
`14 section on describing what fuel volatility is and how it
`
`09:23 15 has changed from high volatility fuels to low volatility
`
`16 fuels.
`
`17 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: But the purge time, 1 to 5
`
`18 minutes is the normal purge time; is that correct?
`
`19 A It depends on the size of the fuel tank and
`
`09:24 20 literally how much volume needs to be filled.
`
`21 Q But in -- on Page 2, you mention that --
`
`22 A This is Page 2 of the technical paper?
`
`23 Q Yeah. I'm going back to -- just referring to
`
`24 what was said earlier.
`
`09:24 25 The duration of the purge flow varies depending
`
`25
`
`1052-25
`
`
`
`M. DAVID CHECKEL, Ph.D.
`
`09:24 1 on the characteristics of the system under test, but
`
` 2 usually ranges from 1 to 5 minutes.
`
` 3 Is that range of 1 to 5 minutes, is that
`
` 4 correct, in your opinion?
`
`09:24 5 A Yeah, it's -- it's a normal range for a fuel
`
` 6 tank that's not a large fuel tank and empty, for
`
` 7 instance.
`
` 8 Q Okay.
`
` 9 A So if you go to a large fuel tank and it's
`
`09:24 10 empty, then you have to run longer simply in order to
`
`11 fill it full of smoke.
`
`12 Q Okay. On this same exhibit, Exhibit 2021,
`
`13 Page 1 on the left column, towards the e
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
