UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`---------------------------------X
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., :
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., :
`
`and SONY CORPORATION, :
`
` Petitioners, :
`
` v. : Case IPR2015-00863;
`
` IPR2015-00887
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC, :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`---------------------------------X
`
` DEPOSITION OF THOMAS CREDELLE
`
` Redwood Shores, California
`
` Wednesday, October 28, 2015
`
` 9:32 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 95817
`
`Pages 1 - 131
`
`Reported by: JENNY L. GRIFFIN, RMR, CSR, CRR, CLR
`
` LICENSE NO. 3969
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 1 of 166
`
`
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`---------------------------------X
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., :
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., :
`
`and SONY CORPORATION, :
`
` Petitioners, :
`
` v. : Case IPR2015-00863;
`
` IPR2015-00887
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC, :
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`---------------------------------X
`
` DEPOSITION OF THOMAS CREDELLE
`
` Redwood Shores, California
`
` Wednesday, October 28, 2015
`
` 9:32 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 95817
`
`Pages 1 - 131
`
`Reported by: JENNY L. GRIFFIN, RMR, CSR, CRR, CLR
`
` LICENSE NO. 3969
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 1 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
` Deposition of THOMAS CREDELLE, held at:
`
`2
`
` Covington & Burling LLP
`
` 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
`
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
` 650.632.4700
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Jenny L. Griffin, RMR,
`
`CSR, CRR, CLR
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 2 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`3
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SONY
`
` WALTER E. HANLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
`
` MICHELLE M. CARNIAUX, ESQUIRE
`
` KENYON & KENYON
`
` One Broadway
`
` 850 Tenth Street, NW
`
` New York, New York 10004-1007
`
` 212.425.7200
`
` whanley@kenyon.com
`
` mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SAMSUNG
`
` PAUL J. WILSON, ESQUIRE
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
` One CityCenter
`
` 850 Tenth Street, NW
`
` Washington, CD 2001-4956
`
` 202.662.5622
`
` pwilsond@cov.com
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 3 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued)
`
`4
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER, SURPASS TECH
`
` INNOVATION LLC:
`
` WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
`
` DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`
` 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`
` McLean, Virginia 22102
`
` 571.765.7714
`
` whelge@dbjg.com
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 4 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`5
`
`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
`
` I N D E X
`
` PAGE
`
` TESTIMONY OF:
`
` THOMAS CREDELLE
`
` BY MR. HELGE .......................7
`
` BY MR. HANLEY ....................120
`
` FURTHER BY MR. HELGE .............126
`
` - - -
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
` (Attached to transcript)
`
` - - -
`
` EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` Exhibit A US Patent Application 72
`
` Publication: US 2008/0106540 A1
`
` - - -
`
`Papers and Previously Marked Exhibits
`
`Referred to and not attached to the deposition:
`
`Paper No. 18 Notice of Deposition of Thomas 8
`
` Credelle, Case IPR2015-00863
`
`1014 Declaration of Thomas Credelle 18
`
` in Support of Petition for Inter
`
` Partes Review of US Patent
`
` No. 7,202.843
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 5 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`(Continued)
`
`Papers and Previously Marked Exhibits
`
`Referred to and not attached to the deposition:
`
` EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`6
`
`Sony-1016 Supplemental Declaration of 61
`
` Thomas Credelle in Support of
`
` Petition for Inter Partes
`
` Review of US Patent
`
` No. 7,202.843
`
`1003 U.S. Patent Application 63
`
` Publication No. 2003/0156092 A1
`
` (August 21, 2003)
`
`1005 Certified Translation of 79
`
` Japanese Laid Open Patent
`
` Application No. 2002-13224
`
`Paper No. 4 Corrected Petition for Inter 87
`
` Partes Review OF US Patent
`
` No. 7,202,843, No. IPR2015-00863
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 112
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 6 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`7
`
`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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` - - -
`
` THOMAS CREDELLE,
`
`being first duly sworn or affirmed to testify to the
`
`truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was
`
`examined and testified as follows:
`
` - - -
`
` MR. HELGE: Good morning. My name is
`
`Wayne Helge for the patent owner, Surpass Tech
`
`Innovation LLC.
`
` MR. HANLEY: I'm Walter Hanley from Kenyon &
`
`Kenyon LLP. I'm representing the petitioner Sony.
`
` MS. CARNIAUX: Michelle Carniaux, Kenyon &
`
`Kenyon, also representing petitioner Sony.
`
` MR. WILSON: Paul Wilson, Covington & Burling,
`
`representing the petitioner Samsung.
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Credelle.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. My understanding is that we're here for a
`
`deposition in the matter of inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 in Case No. IPR2015-00863.
`
` Is that your understanding as well?
`
` A. It is.
`
` Q. Can I have you please state your name and
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 7 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`8
`
`address for the record.
`
` A. My name is Thomas Credelle, 626 Ray Court,
`
`Brentwood, California 94513.
`
` Q. Okay. And, Mr. Credelle, I'm going to hand you
`
`a notice of deposition that is already of record in this
`
`case. This is Paper No. 18, so I'm marking this as
`
`Exhibit 18.
`
` Have you seen this paper before?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. If you look at the cover sheets, do you see it
`
`says "Case IPR2015-00863" in the middle there?
`
` A. Yes, I do see that.
`
` Q. And that's the case that we're talking about
`
`today; correct?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And the patent number is 7,202,843; that's the
`
`patent we're talking about today here?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And your name, Thomas Credelle, that's the
`
`notice of deposition of Thomas Credelle; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. That's you?
`
` A. That's me.
`
` Q. Super. And on the next page, it does say the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 8 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`deposition will be taking place on October 28, 2015, at
`
`9
`
`9:30 a.m., which is now; correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And this is the location that's indicated here
`
`on this paper.
`
` This is the location where we're having this
`
`deposition; correct?
`
` A. I agree, yes.
`
` Q. And you're appearing in response to this notice
`
`of deposition; correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. So even though you haven't seen it before, you
`
`agree that this is why we're here.
`
` A. This is why we're here. I agree.
`
` Q. Mr. Credelle, I haven't gone over any of the
`
`ground rules of depositions, but I assume that you've
`
`been deposed before; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. How many times?
`
` A. Once.
`
` Q. Once. Okay.
`
` And in what matter was that?
`
` A. That was Alien v. Avery Dennison.
`
` Q. And?
`
` A. I was an expert. I was a patent -- I was
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 9 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`10
`
`deposed as an expert.
`
` Q. Okay. I presume that they went over the ground
`
`rules before you were deposed in that matter?
`
` A. They did.
`
` Q. I'm going to going through a couple here just
`
`for clarification, just to make sure we get them on the
`
`record here.
`
` I'm going to ask you, are you taking any
`
`medications today that would affect your testimony?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Is there any reason why you wouldn't be able to
`
`give true and accurate testimony today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Another ground rule which I've already seen
`
`probably the need to state is that we can't interrupt
`
`each other. The court reporter can only take one
`
`testimony at a time or one person's words down in the
`
`transcript at a time.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. And so --
`
` A. Like I just did.
`
` Q. Exactly. You got it.
`
` A. I won't do that.
`
` Q. Thank you.
`
` We want to make sure we get all the testimony
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 10 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`11
`
`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
`
`on the record.
`
` There's another guideline that is unique to
`
`this -- well, somewhat unique to this forum before the
`
`Patent Board, and this comes from the Patent Office
`
`"Trial Practice Guide." I'm going read this paragraph
`
`to you. The paragraph is:
`
` "Once the cross-examination of a witness
`
` has commenced, and until cross-examination of
`
` the witness has concluded, counsel offering the
`
` witness on direct examination shall not, A,
`
` consult or confer with the witness regarding
`
` the substance of the witness's testimony
`
` already given or anticipated to be given except
`
` for the purpose of conferring on whether to
`
` assert the privilege against testifying or on
`
` how to comply with the Board order; or, B,
`
` suggest to the witness the manner in which any
`
` questions should be answered."
`
` Does that paragraph make sense to you?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You understand the restriction on conferring
`
`with your own counsel, for example, during breaks or
`
`even once I've concluded giving -- taking your
`
`testimony, and it then switches over to their chance to
`
`ask you questions.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 11 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`12
`
`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
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A. I understand that.
`
` Q. Okay. So, if I can ask you, you were deposed
`
`in -- you said it was Alien v. who?
`
` A. Avery Dennison.
`
` Q. Okay. And you were appearing on which side?
`
` A. On the side of Alien Technology. It concerned
`
`a patent, a patent from Alien that was challenged by
`
`Avery, and I was one of the patent authors.
`
` Q. I see. Okay. Great.
`
` So you were deposed as the inventor, or as an
`
`expert?
`
` A. Perhaps both, but certainly as an inventor.
`
` Q. Understood.
`
` How long ago was that?
`
` A. That was about ten years ago, approximately.
`
` Q. Were you employed with Alien at the time that
`
`you were deposed?
`
` A. Not at the time. It was after I left
`
`Alien Technology.
`
` Q. Did you prepare an expert report for that case?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. So you've never submitted a report as an expert
`
`before; is that right?
`
` A. I have submitted reports as an expert on other
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 12 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`13
`
`cases, but they haven't gone to deposition --
`
` Q. I see. Thank you.
`
` A. -- yet.
`
` Q. I'll ask you then, what did you do to prepare
`
`for this deposition today?
`
` A. To prepare for this deposition, I read my
`
`declaration, which was completed in March. So I reread
`
`the declaration, and I reread the patents that -- the
`
`original '843 patent as well as the patents we cited.
`
` Q. Did you read all of those patents that you
`
`cited?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Does that include Suzuki?
`
` A. Suzuki.
`
` Q. Nitta?
`
` A. Nitta; correct.
`
` Q. How long ago did you do that review of your
`
`declaration?
`
` A. Over the past week, I've reviewed that.
`
` Q. Had you reviewed it anytime after March until
`
`last week?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. As you were going through it, did you see
`
`anything in that declaration that, given the chance, you
`
`would have done differently?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 13 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`14
`
`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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you review the petition again?
`
` A. I did review the petition.
`
` Q. Do you recall if it was the original petition,
`
`or the corrected petition?
`
` A. I don't recall. It was the latest copy. So I
`
`believe it was the corrected. May I ask my attorney?
`
` THE WITNESS: Was that the corrected?
`
` MR. HANLEY: Was that the corrected?
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe it was the corrected,
`
`but --
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Okay. You said it was the latest?
`
` A. The latest.
`
` Q. Okay. Understood. Thank you.
`
` And did you also review that over, say, the
`
`last week?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Had you looked at that again anytime since
`
`March?
`
` A. No.
`
` MR. HANLEY: Objection. Lacks foundation.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Did you look at it in March?
`
` A. No. Actually, I did not look at the completed
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 14 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`in March. Just my declaration.
`
` Q. So you prepared your declaration without having
`
`15
`
`reviewed the petition first?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, who did you talk to in preparation
`
`for this deposition?
`
` And just for clarification, I'm asking just
`
`identification of people, not contents of those
`
`conversations.
`
` A. Sure. Primarily Michelle.
`
` Q. Anybody else?
`
` A. And Walt.
`
` Q. And when you say "Michelle" and "Walt," you're
`
`referring to counsel sitting next to you; correct?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. Anybody else?
`
` A. And part of the meeting was -- I'm bad with
`
`names. How can I forget? Paul. Yeah.
`
` Sorry, Paul.
`
` MR. WILSON: Okay.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. And by "Paul," you're referring to the
`
`gentleman there?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Was there anybody else at those meetings?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 15 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`16
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you talk to anybody over the phone about
`
`the deposition?
`
` A. I talked to Michelle over the phone.
`
` Q. You didn't talk to any colleagues?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Have you talked to any colleagues at all about
`
`this case or any of the testimony that you've given in
`
`this case so far?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. You mentioned Alien Technology.
`
` Was there a Michael Marentic working at
`
`Alien Technology when you were there?
`
` A. The name does not ring a bell. Possibly after
`
`I left.
`
` Q. Are you aware that Mr. Marentic is a testifying
`
`expert in one of the cases related to this case also
`
`dealing with the '843 patent?
`
` A. I was not aware of that.
`
` Q. So you weren't aware that he was deposed
`
`earlier this month?
`
` A. No, I was not.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you aware of any of the events that
`
`have occurred in a related case dealing with the '843
`
`patent, a related case before the Patent Trial and
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 16 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`17
`
`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
`
`Appeal Board?
`
` MR. HANLEY: Objection. Vague.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. It's okay. You can answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What did you say?
`
` MR. HANLEY: I objected to the question as
`
`vague. He is correct, however, that notwithstanding the
`
`objection, you can answer; and the board, if it comes to
`
`an issue between us related to the objection, will deal
`
`with it at a future time.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
` Can you repeat the question, please.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Are you aware of any of the events that have
`
`occurred in a related case dealing with the '843 patent
`
`and that related case is also before the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board?
`
` A. I have seen the reference to a case with Sharp
`
`that was specified or stated in the response of the
`
`patent owner. So I'm aware that there was some activity
`
`related to Sharp and the '843.
`
` Q. When you say "the response," are you referring
`
`to the preliminary response that was filed by Surpass in
`
`June?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 17 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`18
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. And so did you review that preliminary
`
`response in preparation for this deposition?
`
` A. I did read that response in preparation for
`
`this deposition.
`
` Q. So as I understand from your testimony today,
`
`the first time you reviewed the corrected petition for
`
`inter partes review of US Patent No. 7,202,843 was
`
`within the last week; is that correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. As you reviewed that corrected petition, did
`
`you spot any errors in technology or logic or reasoning?
`
` A. I detected no errors in logic or reasoning. I
`
`did detect some wording that was maybe not as clear as
`
`it could be; but, generally, it was very accurate.
`
` Q. So you agree with the characterizations in that
`
`corrected petition; is that right?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Mr. Credelle, I'm going to hand you what's been
`
`premarked by your counsel here as Exhibit 1014.
`
` MR. HELGE: Walter, I don't think we need to
`
`have this marked as an exhibit here.
`
` Do you agree with that? Are you okay with
`
`that?
`
` MR. HANLEY: I don't see that we need to
`
`confuse the record with duplicate exhibit numbers.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 18 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`19
`
`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
`
` MR. HELGE: Agreed.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Mr. Credelle, does this document look familiar
`
`to you?
`
` You can look through it as much as you like.
`
` MR. HANLEY: While he's doing that, can you
`
`just tell me what -- I'm sorry. Never mind.
`
` I was going to ask you what the exhibit number
`
`was because -- it's down there, but the print is kind of
`
`small.
`
` THE WITNESS: This looks familiar to me. This
`
`looks like my declaration for this case.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. So this is the one you reviewed in the last
`
`week or so?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. This is the one you agreed with?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You didn't spot anything you would want to
`
`change?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So on the cover page, it says "Declaration of
`
`Thomas Credelle" right there in bold letters; correct?
`
` A. That's what it says.
`
` Q. And that's you?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 19 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`20
`
` A. That's me.
`
` Q. Great.
`
` And if you look to the last page, which on the
`
`bottom with a Bates number, it says page 38, but the
`
`type, using, say, Microsoft Word, shows 37.
`
` Are you on that page?
`
` A. I see that page.
`
` Q. Is that your signature there?
`
` A. That is my signature.
`
` Q. And that's your dated --
`
` A. That's when I dated it.
`
` Q. So before last week, that was the last time you
`
`had reviewed this declaration on March 16, 2015?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. Can you please turn to Paragraph 16.
`
` Feel free to read to yourself quickly and just
`
`let me know when you're complete.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Can you explain to me the scope of the opinions
`
`that you're providing in this declaration?
`
` And if you need me to be more clear, just let
`
`me know.
`
` A. Yes. Please expand.
`
` Q. Are you providing an opinion on the proper
`
`claim construction of any terms in the '843 patent?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 20 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`21
`
`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
`
` A. For this case, I'm using the generally accepted
`
`terms for the claim construction, so I did not do any
`
`special claim construction definitions.
`
` Q. So you didn't perform an analysis of what any
`
`specific term means according to, let's say, some
`
`methodology that you might have?
`
` A. I performed my -- an analysis to the extent
`
`that none of the terms seemed confusing to a person of
`
`skill in the art; that they would understood the
`
`terminology. So no special construction was required.
`
` Q. Are you providing in this declaration an
`
`opinion on whether Claim 4 is invalid?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So your opinion is that Claim 4 is invalid; is
`
`that right?
`
` A. That's my opinion.
`
` Q. Can you show me where in this declaration you
`
`reached that conclusion?
`
` A. The Claim 4 has several elements.
`
` So do you want to go through the elements one
`
`by one?
`
` Q. I'm happy to do this however you would like to
`
`answer the question.
`
` A. Okay. Well, let's go to 4.
`
` So the first elements of Claim 4 are regarding
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 21 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`22
`
`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
`
`the basic elements of an active matrix LCD.
`
` Q. Can you tell me where you're looking right now?
`
` A. So starting on page -- well, Paragraph 40.
`
` Q. Okay. I'm there.
`
` A. So at the bottom of Paragraph 40 in the last
`
`sentence, it states, In my opinion, these elements
`
`constitute nothing more than a conventional AMLCD panel.
`
`It was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the purported invention of the '843
`
`patent.
`
` So this relates to the first part of Claim 4.
`
` Moving to Paragraph 48, Suzuki describes the
`
`driving circuit that divides a frame period into
`
`plurality of temporal subfields. It supplies data
`
`voltage -- signal voltages to each of the liquid crystal
`
`cells of an LCD panel in each subfield of the frame
`
`period.
`
` So this covers the multiple pulses of the
`
`Claim 4.
`
` In "The Nitta Reference," Paragraph 49:
`
` "Nitta also teaches an LCD device and
`
` driving method to improve picture quality of an
`
` LCD device."
`
` To the extent that Suzuki doesn't completely
`
`describe an AMLCD, the Nitta reference completely
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 22 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`23
`
`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
`
`describes the AMLCD referred to in the Claim 4.
`
` Nitta also, at the bottom of Paragraph 49,
`
`recognizes there's a "blurriness" issue which is fixed
`
`by multiple pulses.
`
` Further, at the bottom of page 21, it states:
`
` To solve this problem, Nitta discloses a
`
` control circuit that divides a frame period
`
` into a plurality of temporal subdivisions
`
` referred to as 'fields' and applies a data
`
` voltage to every pixel of an LCD panel in each
`
` field.
`
` Finally, in Paragraph 54 -- actually, on
`
`page 25 -- it says:
`
` "Likewise, it is my opinion that a person
`
` of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
` recognized that the data voltages carried by
`
` the data lines of Nitta are applied to the
`
` liquid crystal elements of the pixel of the LCD
`
` panel to effect a change in the brightness
`
` level, and the data voltages generated by the
`
` driving circuit of Suzuki would likewise be
`
` applied to the liquid crystal elements of the
`
` LCD panel for the same purpose."
`
` That purpose is to achieve the proper
`
`transmission rate or transmittance of the LCD.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 23 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`24
`
`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
`
` So that -- from those excerpts, I believe that
`
`the Suzuki and Nitta reference fully describes the
`
`elements of Claim 4.
`
` Q. Is that all that's required to render a claim
`
`invalid, in your opinion?
`
` A. It's -- there's a prior art that renders
`
`obvious the Claim 4 of the purported invention. If all
`
`the elements are present in prior art, it is obvious.
`
`That is my understanding.
`
` Q. I'm going to ask my question again.
`
` Is that all that's required to render a claim
`
`obvious, in your understanding?
`
` A. It's my understanding that if all of the claim
`
`elements are existing in prior art, then the claim is
`
`invalid.
`
` (Clarification requested by the court reporter.)
`
` THE WITNESS: If all of them are present in
`
`prior art, then the claim is invalid. That is my
`
`understanding.
`
`BY MR. HELGE:
`
` Q. Just to get a clear record, your understanding
`
`is that if all of the claim elements are present in the
`
`prior art, then that claim is invalid.
`
` Is that your testimony?
`
` A. That is my testimony.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 24 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
` Q. Based on that understanding, you are rendering
`
`an opinion in this declaration that Claim 4 is invalid,
`
`based on a combination of Suzuki and Nitta; is that
`
`25
`
`correct?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Based on that same understanding, are you
`
`providing an opinion in this declaration whether Claim 5
`
`is invalid over a combination of Suzuki and Nitta?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Based on that same understanding, are you
`
`providing an opinion that Claim 6 is invalid, based on a
`
`combination of Suzuki and Nitta?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Based on that same understanding, are you
`
`providing an opinion that Claim 7 of the '843 patent is
`
`invalid, based on a combination of Suzuki and Nitta?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Based on that same understanding, are you
`
`providing an opinion in this declaration that Claim 8 of
`
`the '843 patent is invalid, based on a combination of
`
`Suzuki and Nitta?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And based on that same understanding, are you
`
`providing an opinion in this declaration that Claim 9 is
`
`invalid, based on a combination of Suzuki and Nitta?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 25 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`26
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And are those opinions independent -- never
`
`mind. I'll withdraw that question.
`
` I'd like to focus on Paragraph 4 of your
`
`declaration for a moment.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. In the third sentence of Paragraph 4, you state
`
`that you participated in research and development
`
`products related to optical materials and flat-panel
`
`displays including LCD devices.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I see that.
`
` Q. What other types of flat-panel displays did you
`
`look at?
`
` A. I looked at electron-beam-based flat-panel
`
`displays and plasma flat-panel displays as well as
`
`active matrix LCD.
`
` Q. When you say "plasma flat-panel displays,"
`
`would it be correct to say that that's what we call now
`
`plasma display --
`
` A. Plasma panel. Right.
`
` Q. Plasma panel, right.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. A "PDP," for example?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 26 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
` Q. Okay. And you mentioned active matrix LCD
`
`27
`
`devices; is that right?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Did you deal with any other types of LCD
`
`devices?
`
` A. I was familiar with the operation of passive
`
`matrix LCD devices, but they are not appropriate for
`
`television, which was RCA's interest. So the main focus
`
`was on active matrix LCDs.
`
` Q. You mentioned that passive matrix LCD panels
`
`are not appropriate for television.
`
` Was that RCA's view?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Was that your view as well?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Have passive matrix LCD panels ever been used
`
`for television, in your estimation?
`
` A. Not to my knowledge.
`
` Q. Have they ever been used for computer monitors?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Have they been used for computer monitors that
`
`are required to display moving images?
`
` A. They are used for computer monitors, and the
`
`computer can't dictate what content the user may try to
`
`display. But the response time of a passive matrix LCD
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`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
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 27 of 166
`
`
`
`Deposition of Thomas Credelle
`Conducted on October 28, 2015
`
`28
`
`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
`
`is too slow for motion video.
`
` Q. Is motion video the same as a moving image?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So if we were to draw a Venn diagram, those two
`
`would be completely overlapping?
`
` A. Well, a moving image wouldn't necessarily have
`
`to be video; it could be computer graphics. So it may
`
`not be a complete overlap.
`
` Q. So, for example, if somebody were moving a
`
`mouse on a computer screen, how would you characterize
`
`that?
`
` A. That would be a moving image and not a video
`
`clip.
`
` Q. Let's take a look at -- you've got one figure
`
`in here. It shows up a couple times, and I just wanted
`
`to find the best version of it. I think page 11 may be
`
`better than page 14. So let's take a look at page 11.
`
` A. Sure.
`
` Q. This is part of Paragraph 31, or at least it
`
`follows Paragraph 31.
`
` Do you recognize that image?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Do you recall where it came from
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
