KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case: IPR2014-01096
` ) Patent: 7,537,370
`VS. )
` ) Case: IPR2014-01097
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY ) Patent: 7,300,194
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` ******************************************************
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` KENNETH WERNER
` JUNE 16, 2015
` VOLUME 1
` ******************************************************
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH WERNER,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Petitioner,
`and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
`numbered cause on the 16th of June, 2015, from 9:00 a.m.
`to 2:19 p.m., before Cinnamon Boyle, CSR in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the
`offices of Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite
`4500 W, Dallas, Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure.
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001485
`
`LG Display Ex. 1020
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case: IPR2014-01096
` ) Patent: 7,537,370
`VS. )
` ) Case: IPR2014-01097
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY ) Patent: 7,300,194
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC, )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`
` ******************************************************
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` KENNETH WERNER
` JUNE 16, 2015
` VOLUME 1
` ******************************************************
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH WERNER,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Petitioner,
`and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
`numbered cause on the 16th of June, 2015, from 9:00 a.m.
`to 2:19 p.m., before Cinnamon Boyle, CSR in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the
`offices of Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite
`4500 W, Dallas, Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure.
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001485
`
`LG Display Ex. 1020
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 2
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` AMANDA K. STREFF
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
` (312) 451-8200
` astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
` ROBERT G. PLUTA
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
` (312) 451-8200
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` NICHOLAS C. KLIEWER
` BRAGALONE CONROY PC
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` (214) 785-6686
` nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
` T. WILLIAM KENNEDY
` BRAGALONE CONROY PC
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` (214) 785-6674
` bkennedy@bcpc-law.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`MEHDI BRAILEY - VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001486
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
` INDEX
`
`Page 3
`
` PAGE
`Appearances ....................................... 2
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`Examination By MS. STREFF ......................... 4
`
`Signature and Changes ............................. 124
`Reporter's Certificate ............................ 126
`
` EXHIBITS
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`1026 Exhibit 2006 and Patent Owner Response 21
` Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected
` Paragraphs
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001487
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 4
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date is
`June 16, 2015. We are on the record at 9:00 a.m. for
`the deposition of Mr. Kenneth Werner.
` Will counsel please state their name for
`the record.
` MS. STREFF: Amanda Streff from Mayer
`Brown on behalf of the Petitioner, LG Display.
` MR. PLUTA: Robert Pluta for Mayer Brown
`on behalf of LG Display.
` MR. KLIEWER: Nick Kliewer for Bragalone
`Conroy on behalf of the patent owner, Innovative Display
`Technologies, and with me is also Bill Kennedy.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, please state
`any agreements for the record.
` MR. PLUTA: I don't believe there are
`any --
` MS. STREFF: Not any.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Court Reporter, please
`swear in the witness.
` KENNETH WERNER,
`having been first duly sworn testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. STREFF:
` Q. Mr. Werner, can you please state your full
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001488
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 5
`
`name and address for the record?
` A. Kenneth Werner, 2 Shadybrook Lane, Norwalk,
`Connecticut.
` Q. And, Mr. Werner, I just introduced myself,
`but, again, I'm Amanda Streff, and I represent LG
`Display, and I'll being asking you a number of questions
`today.
` I think we all know you've been deposed a
`few times on matters related to these patents, so I -- I
`understand you know the procedures, but I'll just go
`over a few -- few things just so we're on the same page,
`okay?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Because there's a court reporter here, you'll
`need to give oral responses -- do you understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And if you answer a question, I'll assume you
`understood it as ask- -- asked; is that fair?
` A. That is fair.
` Q. And if at any point you need to take a break,
`all I ask is that we make sure there's not a question
`pending, and then we can take a break, okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. And you've taken an oath today that binds you
`to give truthful testimony. Is there any reason 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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001489
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 6
`
`cannot give truthful testimony today?
` A. There is no reason.
` Q. I'd like to start by going over how you
`prepared for your deposition --
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. -- did you meet with anyone to prepare for
`your deposition today?
` A. Yes. Mr. Kliewer and Mr. Kennedy.
` Q. And when did you meet with Mr. Kliewer and
`Mr. Kennedy?
` A. Yesterday.
` Q. How long did you meet for?
` A. Probably about eight hours.
` Q. Did you -- other than meeting with counsel for
`eight hours yesterday, did you do anything else to
`prepare for your deposition?
` A. Yes. I looked at relevant -- at the relevant
`documents.
` Q. And when you say "relevant documents," what
`would those documents be?
` A. The -- the patents that are the subject of --
`of this procedure, the alleged prior art, the -- the
`report of Mr. Escuti and similar documents, I guess I
`should say.
` Q. And did -- did you do that for both the -- the
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001490
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 7
`
`194 and the 370 IPR?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you -- did you review anything else in
`preparation for your deposition?
` A. I reviewed all the documents in the Appendix B
`in my declaration. I -- I referred to an online
`textbook of engineering drawing, which is mentioned
`within my declaration.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. Nothing that comes to mind at the moment, but,
`you know, there -- there may very well have been other
`things.
` Q. Have you spoken with anyone else regarding
`your deposition?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. And the documents you just mentioned, when did
`you review those?
` A. Over the last few weeks.
` Q. Other than reviewing documents and meeting
`with your two attorneys, was there anything else you did
`to prepare for your deposition?
` A. Not that I can recall.
` Q. I'd like to turn now to your educational and
`employment background. You received your bachelor's
`from Rutgers in physics in 1966, 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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001491
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 8
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And after that, you got your master's in
`physics from UNC in 1970?
` A. That is correct also.
` Q. And your focus at UNC was on experimental
`solid state physics, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In 1968, you joined RCA solid state division,
`correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And at RCA, your job was to design bipolar
`power semiconductor devices and to transfer those
`designs into the factory?
` A. That is also correct.
` Q. And you weren't involved in designing the late
`transmission and emission for display applications at
`RCA, correct?
` A. No, that is not true.
` Q. It's not true?
` A. Not true.
` Q. What -- what is true? What's not true about
`that question?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) You weren't involved in
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001492
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 9
`
`designing the late transmission and emission for --
` A. I'm sorry, was that -- was that you were or
`were not --
` Q. Sorry. Let -- let me finish first, so --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- we talk over each other, the court reporter
`can't get it --
` A. I understand that, surely.
` Q. You weren't involved in designing the light
`transmission and emission for display applications,
`correct?
` A. Okay. I -- I just want to emphasize you're
`saying I -- I was not.
` Q. Correct.
` A. That is correct, I was not.
` Q. And you were not involved in the testing of
`light transmission and emission for display
`applications, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And you weren't involved in analyzing any
`light transmission and emission for display
`applications?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. You didn't work with or design any back-light
`units at RCA, 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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001493
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 10
`
` A. I did not.
` Q. You also didn't work with any -- work with or
`design any liquid crystal displays at RCA?
` A. I'm hesitating because I was involved in a
`meeting to evaluate an early liquid crystal display
`technology. But other than that, the answer is, no, I
`was not involved.
` Q. What meeting are you referring to?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. It was a -- a half-day meeting at which we, at
`the solid state division, were being asked by members of
`-- of RCA laboratories, or it was Sarnoff laboratories,
`to evaluate an early liquid crystal display that they
`had developed to see if we wished to take it on as a --
`as a commercial -- project.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And did your involvement in
`that meeting involve the design of liquid crystal
`displays?
` A. No. It involved the analysis of their
`prototype.
` Q. In 1971, you left RCA and became a science
`editor of Choice magazine, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And you were an editor there from 1971 to
`1975?
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001494
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 11
` A. That is approximately correct. If it says
`that in my resume, then it's correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor at Choice magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units?
` A. That --
` Q. Correct --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. It did not.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Okay. From 1975 to 1979, you
`were a science editor of Cambridge University Press?
` A. Again, if -- if those are the dates that it
`says there, that is correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor for that magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 1979 to 1981, you were a medical
`acquisitions editor at Medical Examination Publishing
`Company; is that correct?
` A. Again, I will trust you on the dates and, yes,
`that's correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor at that company did
`not involve the design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, 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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001495
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 12
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In 1982, you were at Academic Press; is that
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And your job there also did not involve design
`or engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 1982 to 1985, you were at Macmillan
`Publishing Company; is that right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And is it true that that job also did not
`involve design or engineering of liquid crystal displays
`or back-light units?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 1985 to 1986, you were at IEEE Spectrum
`magazine; is that right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And that job did not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 1986 to 1987, you were at IEEE Spectrum
`magazine as a managing editor, right?
` A. Again, I have to trust you on the dates, but
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001496
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 13
`
`other than that, that is correct.
` Q. And that role did not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Then from 1987 to 2005, you were an editor of
`Information Display?
` A. Yes, Information Display magazine, that is
`correct.
` Q. And your role at Information Display magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In 2006, you worked at Insight Media; is that
`right?
` A. Again, I have to trust you on the date, but I
`did work at Insight Media.
` Q. And your role at Insight Media did not involve
`design or engineering of liquid crystal displays or
`back-light units, right --
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 2005 to 2014, you were the senior analyst
`and editor of Insight Media; is that correct?
` A. Again, I'll have to trust you on -- on the
`dates, but, yes, that's true.
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001497
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 14
` Q. And your role as the senior analyst and editor
`of Insight Media also did not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 2014 to today, you're the senior analyst
`and editor for Meko Limited; is that correct?
` A. In regard to one of their publications, yes.
` Q. And which publication is that?
` A. Display Daily.
` Q. And you -- are you -- what's your position at
`Display Daily?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. My position is senior editor and -- or -- I
`forget what it said there, senior analyst and editor.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And your role as senior
`analyst and editor at Display Daily does not involve
`design or engineering of liquid crystal displays or
`back-light units?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. The -- and you're currently the director of
`marketing at Tannas Electric Displays?
` A. I was director of marketing there until April
`30th.
` Q. And your job there did not involve the design
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001498
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`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
`
`Page 15
`or engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. What -- what are you currently doing? What's
`your current employment?
` A. I am --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. -- a Senior analyst at -- and editor at
`Display Daily for Meko Limited, contributing editor to
`HDTV.com -- HD -- HDTVExpert.com and -- and I'll stop
`there.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Your role as contributing
`editor at HDTV.com does not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units; is that correct?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. That is correct.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And your role as principal of
`Nutmeg Consultants does not involve the design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units; is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So since your time at RCA, which ended in
`1971, you have not performed any design work for light
`emitting applications; is that correct?
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001499
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 16
`
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I have not performed design work. I have
`analyzed designs to evaluate them, but, no, I have not
`done the design work myself.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) All right. So since RCA in
`1971, you have not been involved in the design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, correct?
` A. If you mean -- involved in, you mean do --
`have I done the primary design and engineering myself,
`the answer is, no, I have not.
` Q. Okay. So since 1971, you have not done a --
`done any hands-on design or engineering of liquid
`crystal displays or back-light units; is that correct --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection -- objection,
`form.
` A. Yes, that is correct.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) I'd like to switch to your
`declaration in the 194 IPR --
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. Mr. Werner, I'm going to hand you what was
`previously marked as Exhibit 2006.
` Mr. Werner, did you draft your 194
`declaration?
` A. I drafted it collaboratively with -- with
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001500
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 17
`
`Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kliewer.
` Q. What percent would you say you drafted?
` A. I can't say offhand. There were multiple
`drafts and multiple conversations. I was an active
`participant in the drafting.
` Q. Would you say you drafted more than 50
`percent --
` A. I --
` Q. -- of the declaration?
` A. I can't say.
` Q. When did you start working on your
`declaration?
` A. I can only estimate that it was several weeks
`ago.
` Q. Do you recall how many weeks before you
`submitted this declaration you started working on it?
` A. A -- again, I can --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I can only estimate roughly several weeks.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And can you describe for me
`the -- the process you went about in preparing your
`declaration?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. A -- a general draft was -- was given to me by
`Mr. Kliewer. I commented on the contents, marked it 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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001501
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`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
`
`Page 18
`added text, told Mr. Kliewer, you know, if there's
`anything in -- in there that did not -- was not
`consistent with my understanding of the technology and
`we -- we went back and forth in -- in that way for a
`while.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Was there anything that you
`found in the draft that was not consistent with your
`understanding of the technology?
` MR. KLIEWER: Let me warn the witness
`right now --
` THE WITNESS: Um-hmm.
` MR. KLIEWER: -- to avoid any privileged
`conversations, of talking about any privileged
`conversations.
` A. Okay. So I -- I -- I assume that that is --
`is privileged and, therefore, I will not answer.
` MR. KLIEWER: I -- I'm just -- I'm just
`warning you if -- that the -- that -- not to -- not to
`talk about privileged conversations, but if you repeat
`the question, I think that probably -- you could
`probably answer that question.
` THE WITNESS: Oh.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) So, Mr. Werner, my question
`was: Was there anything that you found in the draft
`that was not consistent with your understanding of the
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001502
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 19
`
`technology?
` A. There was, yes.
` Q. And did you point that out to your
`attorneys?
` A. I did.
` Q. And what -- what was not consistent with your
`understanding of the technology?
` A. I believe that would be privileged.
` Q. The -- the current draft of your declaration,
`is it consistent with your understanding of the
`technology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What -- what concept was not consistent with
`your understanding of the technology in your
`declaration?
` A. I believe that would be privileged.
` Q. It --
` (Sotto voce discussion)
` MS. STREFF: Yeah.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Mr. Werner, your attorney
`hasn't instructed you not to answer, and so you need to
`answer my questions as asked.
` A. Okay. I can honestly say that because there
`was so much back and forth I don't remember specifically
`what -- what the points were that were -- were revised
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001503
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 20
`
`because of my rejections -- over my objections.
` Q. Do you recall what area of the technology you
`saw in your declaration that was inconsistent with your
`understanding?
` A. I can only say it was -- you know, it -- it
`involved the general -- the general topic of the
`declaration, but, you know, at least in one case the
`offending -- you know, passage was -- was remove --
`removed, and other instances, they were adjusted to --
`to reflect my understanding of the technology. But I --
`but I can't remember specifically what they were.
` Q. Do you recall what was adjusted to reflect
`your understanding of the technology?
` A. I cannot remember specifically what that
`was.
` Q. Are there any paragraphs in your declaration
`that you drafted entirely yourself?
` A. I believe there are.
` Q. Which paragraphs are those?
` A. I could -- could not go to them right now.
`I'd have to read the entire -- the entire declaration to
`locate them.
` Q. Did you receive a copy of the patent owner
`response?
` A. Yes, I did.
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001504
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 21
` Q. When did you receive a copy of the patent
`owner response?
` A. I think I saw it for the -- for the first time
`yesterday.
` Q. And prior to yesterday, you had not seen a --
`a draft of the patent owner response?
` A. Not that I can recall.
` Q. Mr. Werner, I'm going to hand you a copy of
`the patent owner response, which is Paper No. 19 --
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. -- and the 194 IPR.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Now, if you could turn to page 8 --
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. -- patent owner response. And look at the
`bottom of page 8.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you could also turn to Paragraph 41 of
`your declaration.
` A. Um-hmm. Yes.
` MS. STREFF: If you could mark this as
`Exhibit 1026.
` THE REPORTER: 10, what --
` MS. STREFF: 1026.
` (Exhibit 1026 marked)
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001505
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 22
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And, Mr. Werner, I'm handing
`you what has been marked as Exhibit 1026 in the 194 IPR,
`which you could use in aiding your answer to these
`questions, or you have both the patent owner response
`and your declaration in front of you.
` A. Okay. Now -- now, this document you've just
`given me, I've -- I have not seen before. Can you tell
`me what it is?
` Q. Yes. Exhibit 1026 is a side-by-side
`comparison of paragraphs from your 194 declaration,
`Exhibit 2006, and paragraphs from the patent owner
`response.
` A. Okay.
` MR. KLIEWER: I'm going to object to this
`as not being best evidence.
` MS. STREFF: Okay.
` MR. KLIEWER: We -- we've got -- you've
`got both -- admitted into evidence, the -- the patent
`owner's response and the -- and his declaration.
` MS. STREFF: Okay. I'm still going to
`ask him questions on it, but you've noted your objection
`for the record.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) So Mr. Werner, if you could --
`either looking at the patent owner response with the
`declaration or the exhibit I've handed you, starting
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001506
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 23
`
`with Paragraph 40 of your declaration?
` A. Forty?
` Q. Paragraph 40, and page 8 of the patent owner
`response.
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. Other than citations to your declaration and
`the patent owner response, would you agree with me that
`those paragraphs are identical?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. Without reading them word for word, I can't
`say they're identical or not. I can say they appear to
`be very similar.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Why don't you read Paragraph
`40 from your declaration and --
` A. And the --
` Q. -- the first full -- first full paragraph on
`page 8 of the patent owner response --
` A. Okay. (Witness reviews).
` Q. Have you had a chance to read both
`paragraphs?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. And would you agree with me that they are
`substantively identical?
` A. I would --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001507
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 24
` A. I don't know what substantively identical
`means. I would say that -- that much of it is
`identical, although there are some variations of words
`and phrases.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Where is there a variation of
`words and phrases?
` A. Oh, okay. I'll have to go back over that
`again. (Witness reviews).
` In the sentence beginning: "This
`limitation is required by Independent Claim 1," and that
`would be -- one, two, three, four, five, six,
`seven -- eight lines down on the patent owner's
`response.
` Then the next line begins: "Claim 28
`recites," and the next sentence in my declaration says,
`"Likewise, the position does not show." So it -- it is
`that kind of -- of variation that -- that I -- that I
`referred to. The para- -- the paragraphs are extremely
`similar.
` Q. If you would turn to the second page in that
`exhibit or Paragraph 41 of your declaration and the
`paragraph starting on the bottom of page 8 of the patent
`owner response.
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. And compare those paragraphs for me.
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001508
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 25
`
` A. Okay. (Witness reviews).
` And other than references, these -- these
`paragraphs are identical as best I can tell.
` Q. All right. So you would agree with me that
`other than this citation to your declaration in the
`patent owner response, Paragraph 41 of your declaration
`is identical to the paragraph starting on the bottom of
`page 8 of the patent owner response?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I would agree.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) If you could now turn to
`either page 3 of Exhibit 1026 or Paragraph 42 of your
`declaration and compare Paragraph 42 of your declaration
`with the paragraph starting on the top of page 9 of the
`patent owner response.
` A. (Witness reviews).
` Yes. And the question was?
` Q. Would you agree with me that other than the
`citation to your declaration in the patent owner
`response, the paragraph appearing on the top of page 9
`is identical to Paragraph 42 of your declaration?
` A. I would agree.
` Q. If you'll move down to the next paragraph on
`page 9 and Paragraph 43 of your declaration, and this is
`also page 4 of Exhibit 1026, and compare those
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001509
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 26
`paragraphs -- or sorry, it's still page 3 of Exhibit
`1026. Compare those paragraphs for me, please.
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. (Witness reviews).
` I --
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Have you finished reviewing
`those two paragraphs?
` A. I have.
` Q. And would you agree with me that other than
`citations to your declaration in the patent owner
`response, paragraph appearing on page 9 is identical to
`Paragraph 43 of your declaration?
` A. I would agree.
` Q. Would it surprise you to learn that the prior
`art analysis section of the patent owner response is
`identical? Other than citations to your declaration,
`it's identical to your declaration?
` A. Well, we've already seen one instance where it
`was not identical, just very similar, but it would not
`surprise to me to know that -- that the two are very
`similar.
` Q. Did you draft the patent owner response?
` A. I did not.
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, asked and
`answered.
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001510
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 27
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Did -- did the lawyers draft
`your declaration then?
` A. The declaration was a collaborative effort
`between the lawyers and myself.
` Q. So was the patent owner response a
`collaborative effort between you and the lawyers?
` A. I was not involved in the drafting of the --
`of the patent owner response.
` Q. What analysis did you perform in preparing
`your declaration?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I believe I've already answered that I looked
`at the documents in -- in the -- in Appendix B and also
`the -- the online textbook of -- of mechanical drawing
`that I mentioned within the declaration.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And what were you asked to --
`to do for your declaration in this case?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. The -- the declaration is in -- intended to --
`to counter the -- the assertions of Dr. Escuti regarding
`the instituted claims.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Did you review the 194
`petition?
` A. I did review the 194 petition.
` Q. Were you asked to provide opinions on the
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`LGD_001511
`
`
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 28
`
`sufficiency of the disclosure in the petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I cannot recall that.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) What's your understanding of
`what's required in an IPR petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. The -- the scope of what I was asked to do
`here was to counter the assertions of Dr. Escuti.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Okay. So you weren't asked to
`counter the assertions in the petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection. Counsel, I'm
`going to ask you not to -- you're getting awful close to
`privileged conversation, so I'm -- remind the witness
`not to -- not violate privilege.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) You can answer. You want me
`to repeat the question?
` A. Yes, please.
` Q. You weren't asked to counter the assertions in
`the petition, correct?
` MR. KLIEWER: And I'm going to instruct
`
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
