`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., )
` )
` Petitioner, ) Case: IPR2014-01097
` )
` v. ) Patent 7,300,194
` )
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY ) Case: IPR2014-01096
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC, )
` ) Patent 7,537,370
` Patent Owner. )
`______________________________)
`
` March 26, 2015
` 9:06 a.m
`
` Deposition of MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, Ph.D.
` taken by Patent Owner, at the offices of Mayer
` Brown LLP, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New
` York, New York, before Brandon Rainoff, a
` Federal Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary
` Public of the State of New York.
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1726 M Street NW, Suite 1010
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001613
`
`LG Display Ex. 1021
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioner
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
` 312.451.8200
`BY: ROBERT G. PLUTA, ESQ.
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
` AMANDA K. STREFF, ESQ.
` astreff@mayerbrown.com
` - and -
` 1900 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
` 202.263.3146
`BY: ANITA Y. LAM, ESQ.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001614
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued):
`
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` 214.785.6673
`BY: JUSTIN B. KIMBLE, Shareholder
` jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`JONATHAN POPHAM, Videographer
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001615
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
` TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page 4
`
`Witness: Michael J. Escuti
`Examination:
` By Mr. Kimble......................Page 7
` By Mr. Pluta.......................Page 188
` By Mr. Kimble......................Page 192
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1004, re IPR2014-01096 ..Page 12
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D., re Case No.
`IPR2014-01096, Patent No. 7,537,370, Bates stamped
`LGD_001007 through 1131
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1001, re IPR2014-01096 ..Page 22
`United States Patent No. 7,537,370, Bates stamped
`LGD_000001 through 12
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1016, re IPR2014-01096 ..Page 42
`Single double-sided document bearing the heading: 3M,
`Brightness Enhancement Film, Bates stamped LGD_001438
`and 1439
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001616
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS (cont.)
`
`Page 5
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1006, re IPR2014-01096 ..Page 69
`United States Patent No. 5,005,108, Bates stamped
`LGD_001140 through 1153
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1008, re IPR2014-01097 ..Page 119
`United States Patent No. 5,408,388, Bates stamped
`LGD_001176 through 1187
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1004, re IPR2014-01097 ..Page 129
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D., re Case No.
`IPR2014-01097, Patent No. 7,300,194, Bates stamped
`LGD_001104 through 1220
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1001, re IPR2014-01097 ..Page 129
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194, Bates stamped
`LGD_ 000001 through 12
`
`LG Display Exhibit 1011, re IPR2014-01097 ..Page 182
`United States Patent No. 5,408,388, Bates stamped
`LGD_001288 through 1299
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001617
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is media
` number one of the video deposition of Michael
` Escuti in the matters of LG Display Company,
` Limited versus Innovative Display Technologies
` LLC, before the United States Patent and
` Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
` Case Nos. IPR2014-01096 and IPR2014-01097.
` This deposition is being held at Mayer
` Brown, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
` New York, on March 26, 2015.
` The time on the video screen is 9:06
` a.m. My name is Jonathan Popham. I'm the legal
` videographer from Digital Evidence Group. The
` court reporter is Brad Rainoff in association
` with Digital Evidence Group.
` Will counsel please introduce
` themselves for the record.
` MR. KIMBLE: Justin Kimble on behalf
` of the patent owner Innovative Display
` Technologies.
` MR. PLUTA: Robert Pluta on behalf of
` petitioner LG Display Company.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001618
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. STREFF: Amanda Streff, also on
` behalf of the petitioner LG Display.
` MS. LAM: Anita Lam on behalf of LG
` Display.
`MICHAEL JAMES ESCUTI,
` having been duly sworn, was examined and
` testified as follows:
`EXAMINATION
`BY MR. KIMBLE:
` Q. Dr. Escuti, you were hired by LG for
` the matters that we're going to be addressing
` today, correct?
` A. That's not correct.
` Q. Who were you hired by?
` A. I was hired by the firm of --
` initially Steptoe & Johnson and now Mayer Brown.
` Q. So you were hired by the law firms on
` behalf of LG, is that correct?
` A. On behalf of the petitioner.
` Q. And the petitioner is LG Display?
` A. It's LG Display Company.
` Q. Approximately -- and so we're going to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001619
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 8
` be addressing in this deposition, or today, two
` different IPR matters, do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So the first is IPR2014-01096, and
` that relates to the '370 patent.
` Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the second is IPR2014-01097, and
` that relates to the '194 patent.
` Do you understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And LG Display Company, Limited the
` petitioner in both of those matters, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Approximately how much have you billed
` for your work on those two matters to date?
` A. Do you mean just those two matters
` alone or the whole set of petitions that we've
` filed?
` Q. So let's try those two alone first if
` you can do it that way.
` A. Well, I know in total for all of them
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001620
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 9
` I've billed more than 200 hours, but I don't --
` I'm not aware of the distribution among the
` patents.
` Q. Okay. So you mention there is a set
` of them. So you are referring to other IPR
` petitions that were filed on behalf of LG
` Display Company, Limited, is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I don't have the exact number, is it
` approximately twenty or so IPR petitions?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. No, the number that I've been a part
` of is approximately eight, at least eight
` different patents. There may be multiple
` petitions associated with each patent with four
` different parties, and if they are all added up,
` it may be the twenty that you are suggesting.
` Q. In cases where -- okay.
` So, first of all, I mean, as you sit
` here today, do you recall that there are certain
` patents for which you have authored more than
` one declaration?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001621
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. I think that's the case.
` Q. All right. So your estimation of the
` time you've spent on this set of matters is
` approximately 200 hours, is that right?
` A. It's more than 200 hours, but I don't
` know if it's 250, 300. I just haven't looked
` recently.
` Q. Do you have any estimation on how much
` money that -- those hours turn into?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. Well, my hourly rate is in the
` declaration and any of us can do the math.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I don't have the number off the top of
` my head.
` Q. All right. And you have been hired to
` work on behalf of LG entities in other matters
` besides these IPR proceedings, correct?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form,
` foundation.
` A. In the past I have, yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001622
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. One of which is an ITC proceeding
` against Graphics Properties Holdings, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Were you working on behalf of LG
` Display Company in that matter, too?
` A. To be honest I forget. That was two
` years ago, I think.
` Q. Do you recall approximately how much
` you billed for your time in that matter?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. No.
` Q. Just to be clear, that was a no?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. You were retained on behalf of LG
` entities in another ITC matter opposite a
` company called ITRI, correct?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form,
` foundation.
` A. I think I'll have to review my CV if
` you want me to refresh myself. So if you give
` me -- refresh my memory, give me a copy, it
` would be helpful.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001623
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 12
` Q. Yes, sir. So I'm going to give you
` what was marked by LG as Exhibit 1004.
` (LG Display Exhibit 1004, re
` IPR2014-01096, Declaration of Michael J. Escuti,
` Ph.D., re Case No. IPR2014-01096, Patent No.
` 7,537,370, Bates stamped LGD_001007 through
` 1131, previously marked for identification)
`BY MR. KIMBLE:
` Q. Take a look at that and let me know if
` that is in fact the declaration that you
` submitted in the matter IPR2014-01096.
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. And your CV is attached to the back of
` that, right?
` A. Yes, it's appendix A.
` Q. So I think if you look at the second
` page of appendix A, you'll see an entry for an
` ITC matter where you're supporting LG Display
` versus -- you have shortened the name of the
` other party, but it's Industrial Technology
` Research Institute, I think?
` A. Are you referring to the second to the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001624
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` last in the list?
` Q. Yeah. It's ITC No. 337TA805?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. Okay. So that's a second ITC matter
` for which you were retained on behalf of LG
` Display, is that right?
` A. Among other respondents, yes.
` Q. Other than the IPR matters we talked
` about already and the two ITC matters that we
` just discussed, have you been retained as an
` expert to work on behalf of LG entities in any
` other matters?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. No, I don't think so.
` Q. Just so I'm clear, do you have an
` estimate of how much you have billed for your
` time working on behalf of the LG entities in the
` matters we've just discussed in total?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` Objection, relevance.
` A. I don't have a number like that. I
` just don't recall.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001625
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 14
` Q. Aside from work as an expert witness,
` have you done other business with any LG
` entities?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance, and
` form.
` A. Can you rephrase the question, tell me
` what you mean by -- can you just rephrase the
` question?
` Q. Sure. So I'm aware that you are a
` professor, that's your day job, if you will, and
` you do some work as an expert witness as we have
` been talking about.
` Do you have any other -- do you do any
` other work for which you receive compensation
` with LG?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` Objection, relevance.
` A. I have no work that -- for which I
` receive compensation wherein I deal with an LG
` entity. However, there is a joint project that
` I had with LG Innotek, and there is a
` publication that relates to that in my CV. But
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001626
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` there was no compensation related to that.
` And I believe that LG Innotek has
` purchased a few hundred dollars worth of product
` from my startup company ImagineOptix. Beyond
` that I'm not aware of any other interaction with
` an LG entity.
` Q. Can you point to me, if you are able
` to off the top of your head, in your CV the LG
` Innotech paper you are talking about?
` A. That will take me a minute to go
` through the seventy conference publications.
` Q. Let's just move forward, then, I can
` look for it later.
` And you mentioned a startup company
` ImagineOptix, correct?
` A. Yes, that's my startup company.
` Q. And that's shown on page 1 of your CV
` under External and Internal Sponsored Research
` Activities, right?
` A. It is shown there, it's also shown
` under Professional Experience and it's discussed
` in my background of myself.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001627
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Can you explain to us briefly what
` ImagineOptix is?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. Well, ImagineOptix is a company I
` founded with two others shortly after I began as
` an assistant professor at North Carolina State
` University, and this company is commercializing
` the intellectual property that we generate at
` the university as one of its main focuses.
` Q. What type of -- does ImagineOptix make
` products?
` A. It does.
` Q. What kind?
` A. Generally it makes optical films and
` components and subsystems that integrate into
` optical electronic devices such as displays, but
` also telecommunications equipment, cameras, many
` other things.
` Q. The optical films that you mentioned,
` are those films that can or that are used in
` displays?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001628
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Objection, relevance.
` A. They can be.
` Q. Can they be used in LCD displays?
` A. They can be.
` Q. We are going to talk today about
` different kinds of optical films.
` Can you explain generally what kind of
` optical films ImagineOptix makes?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. I'll try.
` Q. Okay.
` A. ImagineOptix uses at least two
` categories of technologies. One is a patterned
` liquid crystal layer which can control the phase
` and wave front of light as it passes through.
` Another category is a set of films
` that manipulate retardation and polarization.
` They are essentially complex retarders.
` Q. The first that you mentioned, that is,
` a patterned liquid crystal layer, what sorts of
` pattern are you referring to?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001629
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. There are many kinds of patterns.
` They depend on the application and the system
` that they are going into. There is sometimes a
` linear angular profile so that the angle of the
` liquid crystal pattern changes linearly with the
` distance, but it can also be nonlinear.
` So they can function as essentially
` beam splitters, they can function as lenses,
` they can function as analyzers and polarizers in
` some cases.
` Q. Would these optical films be used in a
` back light portion of a display product?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. They can be.
` Q. Okay. So going back, you said that
` you thought that LG had bought something like a
` few hundred dollars worth of products from
` ImagineOptix, is that right?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. That's my recollection, but I
` certainly don't have the invoices in my memory.
` Q. Other than the expert work we've
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001630
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 19
` discussed and the business that LG has done with
` ImagineOptix and the paper that you mentioned,
` are there any other -- is there any other
` business that you've done or a company that you
` are affiliated with has done with LG?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. Not that I'm aware of.
` Q. Let me take a step back, talk just a
` little bit what we are doing here today.
` I know the answer to this, but have
` you been deposed before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. How many times?
` A. Approximately five times.
` Q. How many of those relate to work
` you've done as an expert witness?
` A. All of them.
` Q. How many of those relate to work
` you've done as an expert witness in a patent
` matter?
` A. All of them.
` Q. So you understand how we are going to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001631
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 20
` proceed today, but let me just remind you that
` if -- and you've already done so -- if you don't
` understand what I'm asking or can't hear what
` I'm asking, to ask me to rephrase.
` Will you do that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if you haven't done so, I'm going
` to understand or assume that you understood,
` heard my question.
` Is that fair?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Obviously if you need a break, let me
` know. We'll break once an hour or so, okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's talk a little bit about -- and
` we've gotten into this some -- your background.
` So you have your CV there to look to.
` A date that we're going to talk about today is
` June 27, 1995.
` Are you familiar with that date as it
` relates to these matters?
` A. Yes, I am.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001632
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. What is that date?
` A. It's the -- it's the priority date of
` the patent.
` Q. Okay. You opine in paragraphs 23 and
` 24 about a person of ordinary skill in the art,
` is that correct?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Actually paragraphs 22, 23 and 24,
` correct?
` A. Yes, that's the complete section in my
` declaration.
` Q. And as you point out at the end of
` section or paragraph 22, the relevant time
` period for what is a person of ordinary skill in
` the art is when the patent application was filed
` or earliest effective filing date, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And so do you understand that to be
` June 27, 1995 for the patents we're talking
` about today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Would you like me to show you the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001633
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` patent to help you?
` A. Yes, please.
` Q. This was previously marked by LG
` Display as Exhibit 1001, and it is a copy of the
` '370 patent.
` (LG Display Exhibit 1001, re
` IPR2014-01096, United States Patent No.
` 7,537,370, Bates stamped LGD_000001 through 12,
` previously marked for identification)
`BY MR. KIMBLE:
` Q. Can you please confirm that that's
` correct?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Does that help you answer the question
` of whether the relevant time period for purposes
` of a person of ordinary skill in the art of a
` patent is June 27, 1995?
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. In paragraph 23, you explain what
` you -- what skill you think a person ordinary
` skill in the art would have, and the third line
` there you say: "And three years of work
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001634
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` experience or a graduate degree in a field
` related to optical technology."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. What kind of work experience do you
` mean?
` A. Well, I mean what it says, work
` experience in a field related to optical
` technology.
` Q. Like -- example like -- what kind
` of -- what kind of work would that entail?
` A. It could entail any number of
` experiences relevant to the optical technologies
` in the case.
` Q. What do you mean by -- you say in a
` field related to "optical technology," right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What do you mean by optical
` technology?
` A. Well, this is -- a person of ordinary
` skill is not a person of expert skill, right?
` So I think I intend this to be fairly -- fairly
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001635
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 24
` broad and focus on those technologies that have
` to do with the control of light, and perhaps
` anywhere from the generation to the redirection
` to the detection of light.
` Q. Do you limit it to any types of
` products?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. I don't limit it to any types of
` products or fields.
` Q. So, for example, the patents talk
` about, among other things, display products,
` correct?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. They talk about display products among
` other things including, for example, lighting
` fixtures and lighting assemblies.
` Q. So in your opinion a person of
` ordinary skill in the art does not need three
` years of work experience related to display
` products or lighting products, it can be any use
` of light?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001636
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 25
` A. Well, my opinion is that it is broad
` because the patents are dealing with something
` that is not the display product itself, but
` rather the back light, the light-emitting
` assembly.
` So that's a fairly simple system as
` far as the optics go.
` Q. In paragraph 24 you say: I understand
` that a person of ordinary skill is also a person
` of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,
` correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And you say: And that would be
` especially true of anyone developing liquid
` crystal display structures.
` Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Why do you say it's especially true
` for people developing liquid crystal display
` structures?
` A. Well, it means what it says.
` Q. Well, it seems -- seems like you are
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001637
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 26
` comparing it to some other technologies, that
` that's especially true in this instance as
` compared to other instances.
` Isn't that not what you mean to say?
` A. I think I simply mean this would be
` especially true in this case, in this matter.
` Q. Why do you think it's especially true
` in this matter?
` A. Well, I don't think I place the same
` emphasis you are placing on the word
` "especially." I mean, I just think it's true in
` this matter, that a person of ordinary skill is
` also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
` automaton nor an expert.
` So it's certainly somewhere in between
` those two extremes.
` Q. Now -- and refer to your CV if you
` like to -- on or about June 27, 1995, at that
` time in your life you were not a person of
` ordinary skill in the art, right?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. Under my definition of a person of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001638
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` ordinary skill, I was not.
` Q. You were in college?
` A. I was earning my Bachelor's degree,
` yes.
` Q. So in 1995 you did not have first-hand
` knowledge of the state of the art?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection.
` Q. Is that right?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. In 1995 I was beginning my learning by
` taking classes and working in the lab relevant
` to -- in not only the fundamental science, but
` also in the devices that are relevant in this
` case. And then that training continued until,
` well, through graduate school.
` Q. So in 1995 were you a sophomore in
` college?
` A. I went to a five-year school so I was
` a junior.
` Q. Some of the patents that you
` analyze -- and we'll go through this in
` detail -- all of them were filed before 1995,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001639
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` right?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. Indeed, all the prior art was filed
` before 1995.
` Q. So you don't have first-hand knowledge
` of the state of the technology in that time
` period, right, because you weren't a person of
` ordinary skill at that time?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. What do you mean by first hand? What
` do you mean by first-hand knowledge?
` Q. I just mean that you weren't working
` in the technology at that time yourself?
` A. Which time do you mean?
` Q. Before 1995?
` A. I was -- I was not.
` Q. Before you were retained to work on
` these matters -- and by that I mean the
` collection of the IPRs that you referenced early
` on in the deposition, do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Before you were trained to work
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001640
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 29
` on these IPR matters, had you heard of Jeffrey
` Parker, the inventor of these patents?
` A. I had not.
` Q. Had you heard of a company called
` Global Lighting Technologies?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance.
` A. I have not.
` Q. And so you were not then familiar with
` products or technology developed by Global
` Lighting Technologies, is that right?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, relevance,
` foundation.
` A. I was not.
` Q. Before you had been retained to work
` on these matters had you heard of a company
` called Lumitex?
` A. I had not.
` Q. In preparing your opinions, did you
` interview any of the prior art inventors?
` A. I have not for this case, no.
` Q. Actually I want to be clear that you
` weren't meaning to caveat your answer.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2015
`
`202-232-0646
`
`LGD_001641
`
`
`
`3/26/2015
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`Michael J. Escuti
`
`Page 30
` Are you relying on any interview with
` the prior art inventors that you conducted in
` some other matter in forming your opinions in
` this case?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, foundation.
` A. I have no caveat. I have not
` interviewed any of the inventors or people in
` the prior art or patents of this case.
` Q. In the -- in preparing the declaration
` for IPR 1096, and that declaration is sitting in
` front of you right now, did you identify -- let
` me say it a different way -- did you select the
` prior art that you rely on yourself?
` MR. PLUTA: Objection, form.
` A. The prior art that we considered and
` used as the grounds for the declaration and
` petition was arrived at in a collaborative
` effort. Some I identified, some the