`
` 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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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
`
`IPR2015-00885
`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