UMTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE TI{E PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZHONGSFIAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; BROAD OCEAN
`MOTOR,LLC; AND BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPM0I4-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`DECLARATION OF GE HU
`
`BOM Exhibit 1020
`BOM v. Nidec
`IPR2014-01121
`
`1
`
`ATTORNEY EYES ONLY
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`
`BEFORE TI{E PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZHONGSFIAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; BROAD OCEAN
`MOTOR,LLC; AND BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPM0I4-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`DECLARATION OF GE HU
`
`BOM Exhibit 1020
`BOM v. Nidec
`IPR2014-01121
`
`1
`
`ATTORNEY EYES ONLY
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`
`1. My name is Ge Hu and I am currently employed as Director of
`
`Engineering at Broad Ocean Motor Technologies, LLC ("BOM"). I have been
`
`employed at BOM since August of 2011. I obtained a Bachelor of Science degree
`
`in both mechanical engineering and electrical engineering in 2000 from Shanghai
`
`Jiaotong University, and a master's degree in mechanical engineering in 2003
`from Purdue University. In 2004, I became employed as an electrical design
`
`engineer for a local equipment manufacturing company located in Lebanon,
`
`Indiana. In 2005, I became employed by Carrier as an electrical engineer working
`
`in Niles, Michigan. My day-to-day functions at Carrier included, but not limited
`
`to, the following: electrical design, review and testing for commercial
`
`refrigeration equipment.
`
`2.
`
`In March 2008, I left Carrier and began working at Goodman
`
`Manufacturing Company (Goodman) which, like Carrier, is an Original Equipment
`
`Manufacturer ("OEM") of residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning
`
`("HVAC") systems. These systems include blower motors that are typically
`
`outsourced by third-party manufacturers such as BOM and Nidec Motor
`
`Corporation ('Nidec").
`
`3. When I was first employed at Goodman, I was assigned to different
`projects until early 2009 when I became assigned to lead a new product
`
`2
`
`
`
`development projectthat included development of controller boards for indoor and
`
`outdoor motors that were to be used in residential FIVAC systems. The purpose of
`
`this project was to develop a four wire communicating EC (electronically
`
`commutated) motor in order to be able to offer a product similar to what
`
`Goodman's competitors were offering at that time. The project was known as
`
`ComfortNet. Up to that point in time, Regal Beloit ("R8") had been Goodman's
`
`sole supplier of EC motors used in residential HVAC systems. I was informed that
`
`because Goodman was not satisfied with RB being the sole supplier of these
`
`motors, and due to RB's poor customer service and high prices, that Goodman
`
`decided to seek an additional source of motors. At that time, Emerson Electric
`
`Company (its motor division was later acquired by Nidec) worked closely with
`
`Goodman to develop, design and build a competing four wire communicating EC
`
`motor and system. This EC motor was a constant airflow motor like the RB 16
`
`wire EC motor Goodman was using at the time. Goodman used the RB's constant
`
`airflow EC motor as the baseline for Nidec to compete with, but also wanted a
`
`totally new four wire motor that was simpler to install and that maintained the
`
`same functionality as 16 wire motors but adding certain safeguards not available
`
`with conventionally-wired systems. In other words, Goodman wanted Nidec to
`
`supply it with essentially the same motor that RB had been supplying but wanted it
`
`to be easier to install and offer some additional features. Goodman was not
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`3
`
`
`
`seeking a more efficient motor, but instead a less complicated, less wire-intensive
`
`motor and controller.
`
`4. When Goodman began the development of their indoor blower motors
`
`for this project, Goodman took the specifications of the RB motor and asked Nidec
`
`to meet those specifications, usually providing a range of target values for certain
`
`specifications such as system noise level and air input rates. As long as Nidec's
`
`EC motors fell within a predetermined range of these targeted values, then the
`
`motor would qualifu. Eventually, the Nidec EC motor was tested and Goodman
`determined that it met the various specifications as mandated by Goodman.
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`6
`
`
`
`7. With respect to the communicating EC motor project at Goodman, as
`
`noted above, RB was first awarded the contract as sole supplier of these EC motors
`
`but eventually Nidec's motors were tested and found comparable to the RB 16 wire
`
`EC motors. After having met Goodman's specifications, it is my understanding
`
`that Goodman met with Nidec and negotiated the pricing of Nidec's EC motors
`
`and, once Nidec was able to offer a competitive price, then Goodman agreed to
`
`begin purchasing Nidec's EC motors. Clearly, quieter operation, better airflow
`
`management, and the ability to operate in low voltage situations were not the
`
`deciding features that drove Goodman's decision to purchase the Nidec motors.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed Mark Carrier's declaration and believe there are some
`
`misstatements contained therein. First of all, concerning the statement that the
`
`Nidec motors were quieter in low speed mode than the comparable RB motor due
`
`to its patented technology, this is something that could easily be performed by
`
`having the motor starting slower and then ramping up slowly over time, and vice
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`7
`
`
`
`versa when shutting down. In fact BOM motors perform this technique by
`
`utilizing operating curves (also known as "cooling profiles or heating profiles")
`
`specified by Goodman, not because of sine wave commutation. Moreover, it was
`
`my experience that Goodman could not have cared less if the Nidec motor was
`
`quieter, what mattered most is whether it was quiet enough. Goodman would not
`
`have paid "extra" for the quietest motor, especially if it was just 2dB quieter at
`
`lower speeds.
`
`9. Regarding the statement that Nidec's motor offered superior airflow
`
`control - we did not see that at Goodman. In fact, in terms of airflow control and
`performance, there was no actual difference and at the very least, it can be said that
`
`there was no improvement in performance. All EC motors have better airflow
`
`control because they are variable speed motors. This feature is not unique to Nidec
`
`motors. While the control techniques vary from company to company, at the end
`
`of the day, the purpose and effect is basically the same, in other words, a more
`
`controllable motor.
`
`10. After I started working for BOM, I personally had experience in
`
`qualiffing BOM motors for Goodman, in particular a constant torque motor as a
`
`replacement for the RB X-13 motor and the Nidec equivalent motor. At first,
`
`Goodman was using RB's popular X-13 motor but based on similar circumstances
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`8
`
`
`
`as described above (i.e., the dissatisfaction with RB as sole supplier and the
`
`associated high price and poor customer service), Goodman began purchasing
`
`Nidec's equivalent constant torque motor known as the SelecTech, BOM
`
`approached Goodman about supplying Goodman with a competing constant torque
`
`motor. Thereafter, Goodman supplied BOM with a set of specifications. BOM
`
`then set about in designing and building a constant torque motor that met these
`
`specifications. Eventually BOM met the specifications and requirements set by
`
`Goodman, and Goodman then negotiated a very competitive price with BOM
`
`which then led to BOM beginning to supply these motors.
`
`11. In fact, Goodman decided to purchase the BOM motors over the
`
`Nidec constant torque motor even in light of the fact that the Nidec motors were
`
`slightly more efficient in some load conditions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`12. I also disagree with Mr. Carrier's statement that motor noise is an
`
`important factor. When implemented properly, all EC motors are quieter than or as
`
`good as PSC motors and, in fact, Nidec's motor is only slightly quieter than the RB
`
`equivalent and based on my experience was not an important factor into the buying
`
`decision for Goodman. Of course, OEMs will not buy a noisy motor in the first
`
`place so all blower motor manufacturers know that they need to make a quiet
`
`motor that will meet an OEM's specifications.
`
`13. Finally, Mr. Carrier claims that Nidec's ECM motors are superior
`
`because they can operate in low voltage situations. All OEMs require motor
`
`manufacturers to supply them with a motor that can operate in a range of both low
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`10
`
`
`
`and high voltage situations. Goodman for example requires that their motors
`
`operate within a ten (10) percent range from the baseline of either 208-230 Volts or
`
`115 Volts. Anything outside these specifications is really meaningless based on my
`
`experience.
`
`14. I further declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that statements made herein on information believed to be
`
`true; and further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both
`
`under Section 1001 of Title XVIII of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application and any patent
`
`issuing thereon or the patent to which this declaration is directed.
`
`Dated: E'& -2o l$
`
`Ge Hu
`
`Declaration of Ge Hu 1802605
`
`l0
`
`11
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
