`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Continental Automotive
`vs.
`Wasica Finance
`
` 
`___________________________________________________
` 
`Scott Andrews
`December 17, 2014
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 3
`
`INDEX:
`EXAMINATION BY:
`Mr. Cleland ............................. 5, 251
`lVIr. Zucchi ................................. 236
`EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION:
`Exhibit 1 .................................... 8
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`
`PAGE
`
`' “7'55
`
`Exhibit 2 ................................... 60
`Decision
`Exhibit 3 .................................. 196
`
`Hand Drawing
`
`
`
` 1
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`BRJNKS GILSON & LIONE
`524 South Main Street
`Suite 200
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`3hone:
`(734) 302-6000
`e-mail: jcleland@brinksgilson.com
`By: James K. Cleland. Esq.
`:or: Petitioner
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`NBC Tower
`Suite 3600
`455 N. CityfrontPlam Drive
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`3hone: (312) 840-3255
`e-mail: nrestauri@brinksnilson.com
`3y; Nicholas A. RestaurifEsq.
`:or: Petitioner
`FISH & RICH
`SON
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`3hon_el:-
`(612)h_335f-5070
`“m“ ' zucc @ mom
`haw kins@ fr.com
`nStephens®fr.com
`By: Jason M. Zucchi. Esq.
`Michael T. Hawkins, Esq.
`'
`I
`For: Patent Owner
`thOlas W Stephens’ Esq'
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Krai Hildahl, Video ra her
`g
`g p
`
`THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SCOTT ANDREWS, take
`
`Page 4
`
`:.)QKOOOQCEWJLUJNH
`
`‘ ‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`”-
`-
`Z
`
`‘
`
`on this 17th day of December, 2014, at the Law
`Firm of Fish & Richardson, 60 South Sixth Street,
`Suite 3200, Minneapolis, Minnesota, commencing at
`approximately 9:00 am.
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins
`
`Videotape number 1 in the depos1t10n of Scott
`Andrews in the matter of Continental
`.
`.
`.
`Automotive, Incorporated vs. Was1ca Finance
`'
`'
`GMBH and BIueArc Finance AG in the US.
`Patent and Trademark Office before the patent
`tr'
`I
`d
`] b
`d
`[3
`13 an aPPea
`03f ,Case num er
`IPR 2014-00295, PatentNumber 5,602,524.
`Today‘s date is December 17th, 2014. The
`time is 9'01 a m The v'
`o o erator toda
`-
`.
`.
`lde
`p
`is Kraig Hildahl. This video deposition is
`.
`.
`.
`.
`taking place at Fish & Richardson in
`Minneapolis Minnesota.
`.
`.
`.
`Will counsel please identify themselves
`for the record.
`MR. CLELAND: James Cleland and
`Nicholas Restauri on behalfofPetitioner
`
`y
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`Page 000002
`
`(Pages 1
`
`to 4)
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 7
`
`Continental.
`MR. ZUCCHI: Jason Zucchi, Michael
`Hawkins and Nicholas Stephens on behalf of
`patent owners Wasica Finance GMBH and BlueArc
`Finance AG.
`
`1 A. No, I don't.
`2 Q. Sir, you are here today because you submitted
`a declaration on behalf of the respondents in
`this IPR Wasica and BlueArc; is that correct?
`A. That's correct.
`
`OO\IG\U‘|>J>-OONH
`
`THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court
`reporter today is Amy Larson of Merrill Legal
`Solutions.
`Would the reporter please swear in the
`witness and then we can proceed.
`SCOTT ANDREWS,
`a witness in the above-entitled action,
`after having been first duly sworn, was
`deposed and says as follows:
`
`K0
`
`'NNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHmbwNHomm<mmbwNHoW
`
`EXAMINATION
`BY MR. CLELAND:
`Q. Good morning, Mr. Andrews.
`A. Good morning.
`Q. You are appearing today pursuant to notice;
`is that correct, sir?
`A. I'm not sure what that means.
`Q. Okay. Have you seen a copy of the deposition
`notice that commands your presence today?
`I was asked by counsel to appear for the
`
`A.
`
`_
`
`Q. Okay. Have you ever performed any work for
`Wasica, BlueArc or any of their owners in the
`past?
`A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
`Q. Okay. In preparation for your deposition
`today, did you speak with any of -- either
`Blue -- anyone from BlueArc, Wasica and any
`of the inventors on the Mock patent?
`A. No.
`Q. In preparation for your deposition today, did
`you speak or talk with anybody besides your
`attorneys?
`A. No.
`Q. Okay. In preparation for your deposition
`today, did you review any documents?
`A. Yes, I did.
`Q. Okay. Are all of the documents that you
`reviewed part of the materials that you've
`listed as having been considered as part of
`maringyour declaration as part of this
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`I don't recall seeing an
`deposition.
`official notice.
`
`Q. Okay. Thank you.
`Sir, you've been deposed before many
`times according to your CV, so I'll just be
`very brief with a few introductory remarks.
`A couple of reminders today, if at any
`point in time you need -- you don't
`understand a question or you need
`clarification, please let me know. Do you
`understand?
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘|iJ>-UJNl—l
`
`K0
`
`10
`1 l
`
`proceeding?
`I believe so, yes.
`A.
`Q. Okay. Did you review any additional
`materials outside of those specifically
`listed in your declaration?
`A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
`Q. Okay. I'm going to hand you, sir, a copy of
`your declaration which we're going to mark a
`Exhibit 1, please.
`MR. CLELAND: Do you need copies
`of these?
`
`OO\lU\U‘|d>-CJNl—‘
`
`1 0
`1 l
`
`MR. HAWKINS: You can just refer
`12
`12 A. Yes.
`to it as the current exhibit number --
`13 Q. Okay. And of course, if you -- if you answer 13
`MR. CLELAND: Okay.
`14
`the question, I'll assume that you understand 14
`MR. HAWKINS:
`-- Exhibit 2006, I
`15
`it; is that fair?
`15
`believe it is.
`1 6 A. Fair enough.
`1 6
`MR. CLELAND: Okay. That's fine.
`17 Q. Okay. If -- if at any point in time you need
`17
`(Whereupon, Exhibit 1 was
`18
`a break, let me know as long, as we're not in
`l 8
`marked for identification.)
`19
`the middle of a question and we'll
`l 9
`2 0
`accommodate that.
`2 0 BY MR. CLELAND:
`
`2 1 Q. Sir, do you recognize that as a copy of your
`2 1 A. Okay.
`22
`declaration that you prepared as part of this
`22 Q. Last, but not least, are you -- do you have
`2 3
`proceeding?
`23
`any conditions, medical or otherwise, today
`2 4
`that would prevent you from testifying to the 2 4 A. It appears to be that.
`25
`full extent of your abilities today?
`‘ 25 Q. Okay. And is your CV, or curriculum vitae,
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/1aw
`
`2
`
`(Pages 5 to 8)
`
`Page 000003
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`attached to the back of that particular
`document?
`
`Page 9
`
`A. A version of my CV is attached to the back of
`the document, yes.
`Q. Okay. That was the version that you -- that
`you submitted at the time of your
`declaration?
`
`OO\lO‘\U'|iD-0Jl\)i—‘
`
`KO
`
`I presume so, yes.
`A.
`Q. Okay. Is there any -- are there any things
`that need to be updated since submission of
`10
`this particular CV that you're aware of
`1 1
`sitting here right now?
`12
`13 A. Give me a second, I'll have a look. (Reviews
`l 4
`document.) I don't think so.
`15 Q. Okay. Sir, I'm going to go back to your days
`1 6
`following the educational period of your --
`17
`or actually, I'm going to go into the portion
`1 8
`of your CV which you have entitled
`19
`Experience. So if you could follow with me
`2 0
`for a minute here, please.
`2 1 A.
`I think that's a different CV than is
`
`OO\]O‘\U'|u-l>-0Jl\)l—‘
`
`\0
`
`communication systems, not typically
`automotive communication systems.
`Q. Okay. What types of communication systems
`were you dealing with back at both Ford
`Aerospace and Teledyne Microwave?
`A. So at Ford Aerospace, most of the work that I
`did was in missile communication systems, so
`
`communications between, say, a guidance
`system on the ground and a guided missile in
`the air.
`And at Teledyne, most of what I
`worked on were microwave systems for
`satellite communications.
`Q. Okay. Following that, it appears that you --
`you became employed by TRW from 1983 to 1996
`is that correct?
`A. That‘s correct.
`Q. Okay. From 1983 to 1993, is it true, sir,
`that you were part of space and electronics
`group at TRW?
`A. That's correct.
`Q. Okay. And what was your position in that
`
`KO
`
`capacity?
`attached to this (indicating).
`2 2
`A. It varied over the years. At first I was
`2 3 Q Okay.
`what's known as a member of the technical
`2 4 A. This is a two-page summary.
`
`25 Q. Sir, at some_point you worked for both F ord__
`staff for a few years, that's basically an
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
`Aerospace and Teledyne Microwave, it appears,
`from 1977 to 1983; is that correct?
`A. You're reading that from the resume, I think,
`in that book.
`I don't think this goes back
`that far.
`
`Q. Okay. You know what --
`A. Yes, that's true.
`
`OO\lO‘\U'|u-l>-0J[\)l—‘
`
`\0
`
`Q. No matter what document I'm reading from, I'm
`interested in understanding your background
`--
`10
`11 A. Okay, that‘s fine.
`12 Q. -- right now.
`13
`Is it fair to say that you were at Ford
`14
`Aerospace from 1977 to 1979?
`l5 A.
`I think that's correct.
`16 Q. Okay. And then you worked for Teledyne
`17
`Microwave from 1979 to 1983?
`18 A. That is correct.
`l 9 Q. In either of those positions, did you have
`20
`any kind of experience with TPMS systems?
`2 l A. No, those were both aerospace companies.
`22 Q. Okay. Were you dealing in any way with
`2 3
`vehicle communications in either of those
`24
`jobs?
`2 5 A.
`I was dealing with various kinds of
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘|iJ>-OONl—‘
`
`engineer.
`Then I was moved into something called
`section head where I managed a group of about
`8 to 10 engineers and technicians. And at
`that time I was generally working on the same
`sorts of things thatI was working on at
`Teledyne, it was satellite communication
`systems at that point.
`Shortly after that, I became involved in
`a very wide variety of projects at TRW
`l 0
`ranging from electro optics to various kinds
`1 1
`of microwave-integrated circuit technologies,
`12
`and eventually became responsible for
`1 3
`developing advanced technologies for TRW's
`l 4
`automotive systems group, even though I was
`15
`still part of the space electronics group.
`1 6
`17 Q. Okay. At what point -- at what point did yo
`1 8
`start developing advanced technologies for
`1 9
`TRW'S automotive electronics group?
`2 0 A. That was probably starting around 1989 or so.
`2 l
`I was working on automotive radar systems and
`22
`providing technology from the aerospace group
`2 3
`to the automotive group.
`2 4 Q. Okay. Anything besides automotive radar
`‘ 2 5
`systems?
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/;aw
`
`3
`
`(Pages 9 to 12)
`
`
`
`Page 000004
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 13
`
`Page 15
`
`CO\IO\U‘|IJ>-00Nl—‘
`
`k0
`
`OO\IO\U‘|iJ>-WNl—‘
`
`K3
`
`that you did that was done relative to a TPMS
`A. Yeah, there were a wide variety of systems.
`system?
`There were electronic power steering systems,
`A. Other than sort of conceptualizmg products,
`advanced safety systems. So essentially we
`which is a lot of what I was domg at that
`were taking the technologies that we had
`time, I don't think I designed a TPMS system
`developed for advanced space systems and
`myself.
`transitioning those technologies to solve
`Q. So your testimony is that you were involved
`problems that the automotive group had.
`with conceptualizing TPMS systems back in the
`Q. At about what point in time -- strike that.
`1991 to 1993 time frame?
`At about what point in time did you
`I didn't exactly say that.
`I was involved in
`10 A.
`become the section head, do you recall?
`1 0
`conceptualizing -- I was the head of -- at
`1 l
`l l A. It must have been about 1985, '84, '85, then
`that time I was involved in and responsible
`12
`12
`I became a department head in about '86, and
`for developing advanced concepts for all
`13
`l 3
`then a senior staff engineer after that.
`sorts of systems using advanced technologies
`1 4 Q. At any point in time while with the space and 14
`for cars, and so we were looking at ways of
`15
`electronics group through 1993, did you have
`15
`sensing almost everything you could sense in
`l 6
`any experience with TPMS systems?
`1 6
`a car and then responding to it.
`l 7 A. It's hard to say, because between about '91
`17
`So, for example, one system that we
`1 8
`and '93, I was working very heavily with two
`1 8
`worked on used accelerometers and radars to
`1 9
`different groups, one was the automotive
`l 9
`figure out how a car was going to get in a
`2 0
`electronics group and one was something
`2 0
`crash, not if it was going to get in a crash,
`2 1
`called the transportation systems group, and
`2 1
`but exactly what that crash was going to be
`22
`both groups were focused on something called
`22
`like so that we could then dynamically
`2 3
`ITS, or intelligent transportation systems,
`2 3
`control the air bags in some optimal way so
`2 4
`and that whole technical area was essentially
`2 4
`
`25
`focused on applying modern computing and
`_ 25
`that the_protection of the occupants would be
`Page 14
`Page 16
`
`
`
`CO\IO\U‘|>J>(AJNl—‘
`
`NNNNNHHHHHHHHHHpmNHomm<mmpmNHom
`
`N (D
`
`communications technologies to transportation
`problems, so I can't recall if I worked
`directly on a TPMS system at that time, but
`the group -- the TRW group was certainly
`working in that area.
`So it's possible that I worked with
`people that were working on that.
`Q. Okay. When you say worked in that area, what
`do you mean by that?
`A. In general, the electronic -- or electronic
`and electrical sensor systems and the
`supporting electronics behind that.
`A lot of the work that TRW automotive
`electronics group and the automotive
`electronics division that I was supporting,
`that was specifically the kind of stuff they
`worked on. They built sensor systems, they
`built, you know, occupant-sensing systems,
`air bag-sensing systems.
`One area that I worked particularly on
`was a pressure-sensing system for a hydrogen
`powered air bag where we had to monitor the
`pressure in a hydrogen cylinder that would be
`used to drive the air bag.
`Q. Sitting here today, can you recall any work
`
`OO\IO\UWIJ>WNI—‘
`
`o
`
`So we were working on all kinds
`the best.
`of systems that relied on sensors and on the
`integration of the data from those sensors.
`I'm pretty sure that we considered TPMS,
`not from the perspective of measuring and
`displaying, but from the perspective of
`monitoring the entire status of the car.
`That said, I didn't personally design a
`TPMS system.
`1 0 Q. Did TRW at that time manufacture TPMS
`l 1
`systems?
`12 A.
`I don't believe so.
`13 Q. Moving forward, sir, to 1993, when it appear
`l 4
`you joined the TRW automotive electronics
`l 5
`group, during your time there, did you have
`1 6
`any responsibilities or experience designing
`1 7
`or implementing TPMS systems?
`1 8 A.
`I'd say it's the same. That work really was
`1 9
`almost exactly the same as what I was doing
`2 0
`prior to my joining it, I just changed
`2 l
`employers, but kept doing the same job.
`22 Q. During, and I'm going to call this the
`2 3
`up-to—l996 time frame, do you recall whether
`2 4
`you had any publications or patents?
`‘ 25 A.
`I'm sure I did, yeah.
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/;aw
`
`4
`
`(Pages 13 to 16)
`
`
`
`Page 000005
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 17
`
`Page 19
`
`Q. Okay. Do you recall the subject matter of
`those?
`
`A. Let's see, the first patent was, I believe,
`in 1986 or so, and that had to do with a
`multimode cellular and satellite-based
`
`out of the cylinders relatively easily, and
`they have to last ten-plus years. So there
`were a variety of different approaches that
`we used for that. We tried to use actual
`
`pressure transducers, which were problematic
`because the transducers themselves would
`
`OO\lO\UWiJ>-O.)l\)l—‘
`
`o
`
`telephone basically, so it was a phone that
`leak, so we experimented with that, and
`you could make cellular calls and also hand
`eventually we ended up using a hydrogen ion
`off to satellites when you got out of the
`detector that actually measured the hydrogen
`cellular area.
`as it escaped, and we inferred from that what
`1 0
`I think the next patent probably would
`the pressure would be.
`1 1
`have been a touch sensitive controller for --
`12 Q. Back -- again, I'm focusing on your time at
`in this case it was for things like
`13
`particularly TRW and I'm focusing on the tim‘
`automotive seats, so instead of having
`1 4
`1993 and before right now --
`switches, you would have a touch pad that you
`15 A. Okay.
`would swipe to control the seats. That one
`was specifically done through TRW automotive 1 6 Q. -- were you -- in the automotive context,
`electronics group. And, gosh, I don't
`17
`were you dealing with -- when you were
`recall whether I had any Toyota patents in
`1 8
`dealing with electro communications, were
`'96, but I might have. And I had --
`1 9
`those primarily RF types of signals or were
`certainly had a variety of publications
`2 0
`other signals involved as well?
`dealing with various advanced technology
`2 1 A. Well, there are all kinds of communications
`systems.
`I gave -- for example, gave a talk
`22
`associated with a car so we were dealing
`on very much the topic I was talking about,
`2 3
`with -- a lot of what I dealt with was RF,
`about advanced sensing and looking at the
`2 4
`certainly at -- prior to the automotive work
`m
`'N
`positions and types of occupants in cars and
`_ 25
`was almost all RF.
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘|ib(JJl\)l—‘
`
`NMNNNl—Il—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—lamNHommqmmamNHow
`
`OO\lO\UWiJ>-(JJNl—‘
`
`KO
`
`l_| O
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
`the dynamics, predicting the dynamics of a
`crash and thereby maximizing the safety of
`the occupants, and that was, gosh, I guess,
`'94, '95 in Chicago.
`I gave a lot of
`presentations at conferences for ITS before
`'96.
`
`Q. You've mentioned the -- you've mentioned the
`work that you did on -- on air bags a couple
`of times. What kind of sensors were you
`using?
`A. Well, there was the pressure sensor for the
`hydrogen-powered air bag. There were
`accelerometers. One of the systems we built
`used an accelerometer that we sampled as a
`function of time and then put the inputs into
`the neuro net to try to detect a crash
`signature.
`It's obviously various kinds of radars
`and sonars for backup detection, side lane
`change detection, adaptive cruise control,
`things like that.
`Q. What type of pressure sensors were you
`dealing with relative to the air bags?
`A. Well, there was a -- the problem you have is
`hydrogen is a very small atom and so it leaks
`
`We looked at RF systems for communication
`systems, both for the car to communicate
`outside the car and also looked at
`
`radio-based communication systems to
`implement networks within the car so that you
`could begin to avoid some of the wiring in
`the car.
`
`03\lO‘\UWIJ>-00l\)l—‘
`
`KO
`
`There were also quite a number of
`internal communication systems within the car
`that are not RF. They're typically serial
`10
`bus communication systems.
`1 1
`12 Q. Sir, since your time at TRW, have you worked
`13
`on any -- and I'm excluding this particular
`14
`proceeding, have you worked on any TPMS
`15
`systems?
`1 6 A. Certainly -- well, I worked on a case five
`17
`years ago or so, I believe it was Nissan
`1 8
`versus MHL Tech or something like that, as an
`1 9
`expert, and I don't recall whether I worked
`2 0
`on -- directly on any TPMS systems at Toyota.
`2 1
`They may have had TPMS as a feature in some
`22
`of the systems that they were working on, but
`2 3
`not -- I wasn't directly involved in
`2 4
`designing them.
`‘ 2 5 Q. Drawing your attention to the -- to the
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/1aw
`
`5
`
`(Pages 17 to 20)
`
`Page 000006
`
`

`

`ib-le—‘OKOCOQGU‘Iib-UONl—‘OKO
`
`CO\lO\U‘|iJ>-(A)l\)l—‘
`NNNNNl—ll—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—l
`coummfi-mNI—l
`
`KO
`
`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 21
`
`Page 23
`
`Nissan versus MHL Tech case, who -- who were
`you appearing on behalf of in that case?
`A. In that case it was on behalf of Nissan.
`
`Q. And Nissan was the plaintiff in that case
`or --
`
`A. No, they were the defendant.
`Q. The defendant?
`Do you recall the scope of your work in
`that particular case?
`A. Yeah, they -- the patent had to do with
`communicating from the pressure sensor in the
`tire out through the axle and the chassis of
`the car. That was the claim that they were
`making, and it turned out that they were
`still using RF, it's just that they kind of
`didn't realize it.
`
`CO\lO\U‘|iJ>-(A)l\)l—‘
`
`Samsung with a whole bunch of other -- I
`can't remember whether Samsung was a Fish
`defendant. It was one of these things with
`six phone companies, so it would -- might
`have been Samsung, that was fairly recent,
`and I believe it settled.
`
`Lo
`
`Q. Do you recall the plaintiff in that case?
`A.
`I don't. Sorry. It was in the -- I believe
`it was in the ITC, I'm not sure, and it was
`some small company with Samsung, Sony, ZTE, a
`10
`bunch of people like that.
`l 1
`12 Q. Was it a patent holding company or a patent
`13
`assertion entity?
`14 A.
`I think so.
`15 Q. And do you recall the -- so you said it was
`1 6
`an ITC matter?
`
`NHOKOCOQGU'Iib-wNH
`
`I think so. It's probably in my case list if
`17 A.
`So I read the patent, obviously,
`you look through there.
`1 8
`understood what the basic technology of the
`Then there is this case, and I believe I
`l 9
`patent was, what the claims were, and then I
`am retained by Fish on another case, but I
`2 0
`did quite a bit of prior art searching for
`haven't done any work on it is another case
`2 1
`that particular case, and after doing that,
`for Honda versus a company called Signal IP.
`22
`I'm not quite sure what the circumstances of
`And all -- all of the other Fish cases
`2 3
`it were but case settled prior to me writing
`are defense side cases.
`2 4
`a report.
`ow
`' N
`Q. Did you -- you said_ you had not written a
`_ 25 Q. Is the Signal IP case in Texas, eastern
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
`report or a declaration in that particular
`case?
`A. No.
`
`Q. Had you arrived at any conclusions at that
`point in time as to the validity of the
`patent?
`A. Well, certainly it hadn't formulated any
`formal conclusions.
`I hadn't done claim
`charts and whatnot.
`I had identified several
`
`|_| O
`
`\oc0\lmmiJ>-wl\)l—‘
`NNNl—ll—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘H
`
`district of Texas?
`
`I don‘t recall.
`A. Probably.
`Q. That would be a pretty good starting point?
`A. A pretty good starting point, Texas or
`Delaware.
`
`Q. In the -- have you -- have you ever worked
`with the attorneys sitting at the table here?
`A. No, I haven‘t.
`Q. What was the -- the scope of the work
`performed in the Honda versus American -- I
`think you called it CalCar case?
`A. American CalCar.
`It‘s capital C-A-L, capital
`C-A-L, but all one word.
`Let‘s see, I started -- on that case I
`did prior art searching.
`I did -- wrote an
`invalidity report.
`I supported the attorneys
`in developing summary judgment motions and
`did a noninfringement report, was deposed on
`both of those reports and then testified at
`trial.
`
`Q. When you say supported summary judgments, yo
`prepared a declaration, at least one
`declaration in support of --
`A. No, actually I didn‘t even do declarations
`
`pieces of prior art that I felt were
`1 0
`addressing the claimed invention of the
`1 l
`patent.
`12
`13 Q. Have you -- have you ever performed any work
`14
`on behalf of Fish & Richardson?
`15 A.
`I have.
`
`1 6 Q. In how many instances?
`17 A.
`I was trying to think of this the other day.
`1 8
`I think I have -- it's either three or four,
`1 9
`including this case.
`2 0 Q. Can you list those, please?
`2 l A. Let's see, the first one would have been in
`22
`relation to -- I was supporting Honda against
`2 3
`American CalCar, and that was around 2005,
`2 4
`southern district of California.
`
`2 5
`
`Then I believe there was a case that was
`
`‘
`
`for that. Basically, you know, they would --
`
`6
`
`(Pages 21 to 24)
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/1aw
`
`Page 000007
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 25
`
`Page 27
`
`I would meet with them and they would show me
`what they were proposing, and I talked to
`them about it.
`
`Q. Okay. Let's go to the -- and we'll come back
`to that one, but let's go to the Samsung case
`for a moment.
`A. Uh-huh.
`
`Q. Do you recall the scope of your work in the
`Samsung case?
`I think most of that related to -- I'm not
`sure if I each did a declaration.
`I knowI
`
`A.
`
`I think most of it dealt
`didn't do a report.
`with providing guidance or technical
`consultation on some claim construction
`
`issues, and I believe, I'm not completely
`sure of this because it's been awhile and it
`
`was a short case, I believe that following
`claim construction, the other side either
`settled or gave up the case.
`Q. Did you do any prior art searching in that
`case?
`
`art searching and partly prior art that was
`developed actually by -- or not developed,
`but it was brought forward by some Honda
`engineers. There were quite a number of
`Japanese patents and that particular case was
`dealing extensively with user interface
`systems in cars, which the Japanese were
`really pioneers in. So there's a great deal
`of Japanese prior art that was identified by
`Honda, and then I analyzed the translations.
`Q. What was the technology in that case?
`A. It was -- with 14 patents, it was all over
`the map. But most of the technology dealt
`with user interfaces and the way a user would
`interact with systems in the car.
`There may have been other aspects. Over
`the course of this long case, some of the
`patents fell out, either through summary
`judgments of noninfringement or through just
`either claims or entire patents being dropped
`from the case.
`
`So there were -- at the beginning, they
`covered cruise control and all kinds of other
`
`I may have, but I don't recall.
`A.
`Q. Did you submit any kind of a report in that
`I\) .5.
`I\) .5.
`case?
`things, as well as user interfaces.
`M (II
`A. No, I don't believe so.
`_25
`Q. Do you recall the technology in the Samsun
`
`k0
`
`OO\IO‘\U‘|il>-0JI\)l—|
`NNNNHHHHHHHHHHwMHomm4mmbwMHo
`OO\IO‘\U‘ILJ>-(/JI\)I—|
`
`k0
`
`OO\IO‘\U‘|iJ>-0JI\)l—‘
`NNNNHHHHHHHHHHmNHOmm4mmemNHo
`03\IO‘\U‘ILJ>-Wl\)l—‘
`
`k0
`
`KO
`
`Page 26
`
`Q. And in the Honda case that you listed versus
`Signal IF, you haven't performed any work in
`that case yet?
`A. Not yet.
`Q. Going back to the -- going back to the Honda
`case, did you -- do you recall how many
`patents were asserted in that case?
`A. There were 14 patents and something like 230
`claims that were asserted.
`
`Page 28
`
`case?
`A. That was all related to location-based
`
`services for cellular phones.
`Q. Sir, you've referenced that as part of your
`-- first of all, about how many times have
`you been retained as an expert witness in
`your career?
`I used to be able to remember but probably 20
`times.
`
`A.
`
`10 Q. All patent cases?
`10 Q. Do you recall whether you opined on all 14
`I have one case
`1 1 A. Mostly patent cases.
`11
`patents?
`12
`currently that's a -- an inventorship case,
`12 A.
`I did.
`13
`but they are all related in some way to
`13 Q. Do you recall whether you opined on the
`14
`patents.
`14
`validity of all 14 patents?
`15 Q. How many of those cases have you given
`15 A.
`I did.
`16 Q. Do you recall whether you determined that the. 1 6
`deposition testimony?
`17
`14 patents were either valid or invalid?
`17 A. Probably -- well, I've been deposed probably
`18 A.
`I provided invalidity arguments for all 14
`18
`about 15 times, I'm guessing.
`I don't --
`1 9
`patents.
`1 9
`sometimes I was deposed a couple of times in
`2 O Q. Do you recall whether your opinion was that
`2 O
`a given case.
`2 1
`all 14 patents were invalid?
`2 1 Q. How many times have you testified at trial?
`22 A. Yes, it was.
`22 A. Let's see, I've testified in southern
`23 Q. And was that a result of your prior art
`23
`district once, eastern Texas once, ITC twice
`2 4
`searching?
`2 4
`and Minnesota once.
`25 A. It was. That case, it was partly my prior
`‘ 25 Q. When you say the "southern district," you
`
`(312) 386—2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/1aw
`
`7
`
`(Pages 25 to 28)
`
`Page 000008
`
`

`

`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 31
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘||J>-OJNl—‘
`
`j_iOKO
`
`mean --
`
`A. California.
`
`Q. How many IPRs have you been involved with,
`sir?
`
`I don't know
`A. Probably about five or six.
`whether a CMB [sic] would be an IPR, but that
`was the first one I did, was a covered
`business method, and then the rest of them
`probably in the last two years have been --
`probably five or six IPR.
`Q. Yeah, I was going to ask you separately about
`CBMs?
`
`A. Okay.
`Q. So you said two or three of those?
`A. Two CBMs and probably five or six IPRs.
`Q. Okay. Have you -- have you been working on
`behalf of Fish in any of those IPRs or CBMs?
`I don't believe so.
`
`A.
`
`Q. Have any of those gone to a final decision?
`A.
`I don't know.
`I know that -- yeah, I don't
`know.
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘||l>-UJNl—|
`Nl—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—ll—lommqam®wmHow
`
`Q. Sure.
`A. Let's see, I think that I've been involved in
`about five or six, whatI would call,
`plaintiff-side cases where I was working for
`the person asserting the patent and the
`balance of my work has been in defense-side
`cases.
`
`Most of my clients are -- have been -- or
`most of my cases have been working for the
`car companies, and they typically aren't
`plaintiffs in these case.
`Q. Do you know whether you -- in each of thos
`cases that -- of those defendant-side cases
`
`that have reached the point where you have
`prepared an expert report, in each of those
`cases have you found -- have you found the
`patent invalid.
`MR. ZUCCHI: Object to form.
`THE WITNESS: Have -- do you
`
`mean --
`
`BY MR. CLELAND:
`
`Q. Have you submitted expert declarations in
`each of those instances?
`
`Q. In other words, sir, I'll -- you said that
`you've been involved in about 15 or so cases
`on the defendants side, and I -- is it fair
`I believe in every instance, yeah.
`A.
`
`to say that not all of those have got to the
`Q. Have you been on either the petition or the
`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘||l>-UJNl—|
`l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—‘l—lmqam®wmHom
`
`patent owners side in those?
`A. Let's see, I think all of them except this
`one I've been on the petitioner's side.
`Q. In each of those instances, have you reached
`a conclusion that the claims of the patent
`subject to the petition are invalid?
`A. At least the asserted claims, yeah.
`Q. And in your prior expert work, sir, have you
`served on both the defendant's side as well
`
`as the plaintiff's side? And let me just
`clarify that because I know that we get into
`the issue of declaratory judgment actions
`where the -- the accused entity files a suit
`and is thus the DG plaintiff. And when I say
`plaintiff or defendant, I mean -- the terms
`I'm using are plaintiff is the patent owner,
`defendant is the party against which the
`patent or patents have been asserted.
`A. Yeah, that's kind of howl think about them
`the same way.
`Q. I just wanted to make sure we were on the
`same page.
`A. Because I have been involved in cases where
`
`my client also countersued or whatever it was
`called.
`
`‘25
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘||J>-OJNl—‘
`
`KO
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`point where you've actually prepared an
`expert report? Or are those the ones that
`you're talking about where you've gotten to
`that stage?
`A. You know, the numbers don't seem to add up,
`but I've probably -- I'd have to look at the
`total list, but I've served on a number of
`cases where I have opined either on
`noninfringement or invalidity or both, and I
`would say in probably maybe 50 to 60 percent
`of those cases I've developed some kind of a
`report or declaration, depending on the case
`and --
`
`Q. So based on that, could I ask you my questio
`just so it's clear on the record then?
`So in the cases where you've actually
`prepared a report or a declaration and where
`you've opined on invalidity on the
`defendant's side, in each of those cases have
`you found the patent or patents asserted to
`be invalid?
`
`MR. ZUCCHI: Object to form.
`THE WITNESS: Are you asking has
`my opinion that I've provided in my report
`been that my opinion is that the prior art
`
`(312) 386-2000
`
`Merrill Corporation — Chicago
`www.merrillcorp.com/law
`
`8
`
`(Pages 29 to 32)
`
`Page 000009
`
`

`

`Q. Any -- any form of invalidity.
`A. As opposed to whether the Court has agreed
`with me or thejury has agreed with me?
`Q. Yeah, good -- good point of clarification,
`yes, that's my question.
`A. Yes, I --
`MR. ZUCCHI: Object to form.
`THE WITNESS:
`I have -- I think in
`
`l 0
`1 1
`
`each of those cases I have put forward
`l 2
`arguments as to how the prior art or as to
`1 3
`the patentability of the patents, whether
`l 4
`that's prior art or enablement or written
`1 5
`description or even patentability.
`1 6
`17 BY MR. CLELAND:
`
`18 Q. And as a plaintiff-side expert in your duties
`1 9
`doing that, have you ever found a patent in
`2 0
`your capacity on the -- as an expert for the
`2 l
`plaintiff to be invalid?
`2 2
`MR. ZUCCHI: Object to form.
`2 3
`THE WITNESS: I've never typically
`2 4
`been asked to find a -- if the patent is
`_2 5
`invalid. I'm ty_pically responding to
`
`[\JNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHOerNl—‘OKOOOQONU‘IibWNI—lo
`
`|_| O‘l
`
`Scott Andrews
`
`December 17, 2014
`
`Page 33
`
`Page 35
`
`anticipates or written description or for
`whatever reason?
`BY MR. CLELAND:
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘|i-l>-WI\Jl—|
`
`k0
`
`OO\lO‘\U‘|i-l>-WI\Jl—|
`
`k0
`
`Q. How do go about performing your prior art
`searches?
`
`A. Well, the first thingI do is read the patent
`and read the claims, and quite often in my
`line of work the patents have multiple
`parents thatI need to go back and
`understand. Typically I'll try to understand
`the file history, sometimes I don't read the
`file history at the beginning just because I
`do kind of a broad search. And then based on
`
`
`
`whatever the -- the effective or expected
`priority dates are, I will then do a series
`of patent searches typically using either the
`-- I usually use free patents onli