throbber
3/26/2015
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket