In The Matter Of:
`Lindsay Corporation v.
`Valmont Industries, Inc.
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg
`January 12, 2016
`
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`1
`
`VALMONT 2007
`Lindsay v. Valmont
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
`Lindsay Corporation v.
`Valmont Industries, Inc.
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg
`January 12, 2016
`
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`1
`
`VALMONT 2007
`Lindsay v. Valmont
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
`1
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 ____________________
`
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 4 ____________________
`
` 5 LINDSAY CORPORATION, )
` )
` 6 Petitioner, )
` )
` 7 vs. ) Case IPR2015-01039
` ) Patent 7,003,357 B1
` 8 VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC., )
` )
` 9 Patent Owner. )
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20 DEPOSITION OF DR. CRAIG ROSENBERG
`
`21 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER
`
`22 JANUARY 12, 2016
`
`23 (9:05 a.m. to 12:41 p.m.)
`
`24 Charles W. Motter
` Kansas CCR No. 441
`25 Missouri CCR No. 617
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`2
`
`
`
`2
`
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2 QUESTIONS BY: PAGE
`
` 3 MR. MUSSELMAN 5
` MR. BROWN 107
` 4
`
` 5 EXHIBITS
`
` 6 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` 7 Exhibit 2001 Notice of Deposition of Dr. Craig 5
` Rosenberg
` 8
`
` 9 PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`10 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`11 Exhibit 1001 Copy of United States Patent 60
` 7,003,357 B1
`12
` Exhibit 1004 Copy of Scott Reference 111
`13
` Exhibit 1007 Copy of United States Patent 69
`14 7,010,294 B1
`
`15 Exhibit 1009 Declaration of Dr. Craig 18
` Rosenberg Under 37 C.F.R. Section
`16 1.132
`
`17 (All exhibits are attached.)
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`3
`
`
`
`3
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 ____________________
`
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 4 ____________________
`
` 5 LINDSAY CORPORATION, )
` )
` 6 Petitioner, )
` )
` 7 vs. ) Case IPR2015-01039
` ) Patent 7,003,357 B1
` 8 VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC., )
` )
` 9 Patent Owner. )
`
`10
`
`11 DEPOSITION OF DR. CRAIG ROSENBERG,
`
`12 produced, sworn, and examined on January 12, 2016,
`
`13 between the hours of 9:05 a.m. and 12:41 p.m. of that
`
`14 day, at Hovey Williams LLP, 10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite
`
`15 1000, Overland Park, Kansas, before Charles W. Motter,
`
`16 Missouri CCR No. 617 and Kansas CCR No. 441, in a
`
`17 certain cause now pending in the United States Patent
`
`18 and Trademark Office, before the Patent Trial and
`
`19 Appeal Board, wherein Lindsay Corporation is the
`
`20 Petitioner, and Valmont Industries, Inc., is the
`
`21 Patent Owner.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`4
`
`
`
`4
`
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 2 For the Petitioner:
`
` 3 Mr. Scott R. Brown
` HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
` 4 10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
` Overland Park, KS 66210
` 5 913.647.9050
` 913.647.9057 Fax
` 6 sbrown@hoveywilliams.com
`
` 7 For the Patent Owner:
`
` 8 Mr. Wes Musselman, Jr.
` FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
` 9 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
` Dallas, TX 75201
`10 214.747.5070
` 214.747.2091 Fax
`11 musselman@fr.com
`
`12 Court Reporter: Mr. Charles W. Motter
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`5
`
`
` 1 (Deposition commenced at 9:05 a.m.)
`
` 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by
`
` 3 and between counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for
`
` 4 the Patent Owner, that the deposition of DR. CRAIG
`
` 5 ROSENBERG may be taken in shorthand by Charles W.
`
` 6 Motter, RDR, CRR, a Certified Court Reporter, and
`
` 7 afterwards transcribed into typewriting; and the
`
` 8 signature of the witness is expressly reserved.
`
` 9 * * * * *
`
`10 DR. CRAIG ROSENBERG,
`
`11 of lawful age, produced, sworn, and examined on behalf
`
`12 of the Patent Owner, deposes and says:
`
`13 EXAMINATION
`
`14 QUESTIONS BY MR. MUSSELMAN:
`
`15 Q. Good morning. My name is Wes Musselman
`
`16 and I'm representing Valmont Industries, the patent
`
`17 owner, in an inter partes review proceeding.
`
`18 Do you understand that you're here to
`
`19 provide your deposition in connection with that
`
`20 proceeding?
`
`21 A. I do.
`
`22 (A discussion was held off the record.)
`
`23 (Exhibit 2001 marked for identification
`
`24 by the reporter.)
`
`25 Q. (By Mr. Musselman) Mr. Rosenberg, I'm
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`6
`
`
` 1 going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 2001
`
` 2 and I'll represent to you that's a notice of your
`
` 3 deposition at the date and time it was originally
`
` 4 scheduled of December 18th, 2015.
`
` 5 Do you understand that you are here
`
` 6 pursuant to a notice of deposition in the inter partes
`
` 7 review proceeding?
`
` 8 A. I do, yes.
`
` 9 Q. And that we're here today as a result of
`
`10 an agreement between the parties to reschedule your
`
`11 deposition until today?
`
`12 A. Yes.
`
`13 Q. Have you been deposed before?
`
`14 A. I have.
`
`15 Q. About how many times?
`
`16 A. Six times previously.
`
`17 Q. Okay. So you understand that you're here
`
`18 to provide sworn testimony in connection with a
`
`19 proceeding before the United States Patent Office?
`
`20 A. I do.
`
`21 Q. Is there any reason that you cannot give
`
`22 accurate or complete testimony today?
`
`23 A. No.
`
`24 Q. Are you on any medication that could
`
`25 impact your cognitive abilities?
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`7
`
`
` 1 A. No.
`
` 2 Q. Okay. You understand from your previous
`
` 3 depositions that this will be question-and-answer
`
` 4 format; that unless you're instructed not to answer by
`
` 5 your counsel, that you will still provide an answer,
`
` 6 subject to any objections by your counsel?
`
` 7 A. I understand.
`
` 8 Q. I'm going to assume that you understand
`
` 9 my questions unless you ask me to clarify or rephrase
`
`10 them, so if there's any question that I ask you that
`
`11 you're not clear about, please ask me to clarify.
`
`12 A. I will do that.
`
`13 Q. Continue to answer audibly, as you have,
`
`14 so the court reporter doesn't have to decipher nods or
`
`15 head movements.
`
`16 A. Of course.
`
`17 Q. And you can break anytime. My only
`
`18 request is that you answer the question that's
`
`19 presently pending.
`
`20 So whether you need a bio break or if
`
`21 we've been going on any period of time that causes you
`
`22 to want to break, feel free to ask for one.
`
`23 A. Okay.
`
`24 Q. I'll try to break at least once an hour,
`
`25 but we could break with whatever frequency you'd like.
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`8
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`8
`
`
` 1 It's possible that I'll lose track of time and go
`
` 2 over, and then I'm sure you or your counsel will
`
` 3 remind me.
`
` 4 Have you provided testimony at trial
`
` 5 before?
`
` 6 A. I have.
`
` 7 Q. And how many times?
`
` 8 A. One time.
`
` 9 Q. One time?
`
`10 What was the nature of that case?
`
`11 A. It was a GPS -- a case involving GPS and
`
`12 user interface surrounding GPS devices.
`
`13 Q. And do you recall the parties?
`
`14 A. I do.
`
`15 Q. Who were they?
`
`16 A. Silver State Intellectual Technologies
`
`17 versus Garmin.
`
`18 Q. And did you provide testimony on behalf
`
`19 of Silver State?
`
`20 A. I did.
`
`21 Q. And was Silver State a patent owner in
`
`22 that case?
`
`23 A. They were.
`
`24 Q. How many patents were in suit in that
`
`25 case?
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`9
`
`
` 1 A. Four.
`
` 2 Q. Did you provide testimony with respect to
`
` 3 infringement, validity, or both issues?
`
` 4 A. Both.
`
` 5 Q. And was it your conclusion that the
`
` 6 patent-in-suit or patents-in-suit were valid and
`
` 7 infringed?
`
` 8 A. That was my opinion, yes.
`
` 9 Q. And approximately when did you provide
`
`10 that testimony at trial?
`
`11 A. Spring of this -- of 2015.
`
`12 Q. Okay. Who was the counsel for Silver
`
`13 State?
`
`14 A. Knobbe Martens.
`
`15 Q. Okay. And who was counsel for the
`
`16 defendant?
`
`17 A. They switched partway through the trial
`
`18 and it was a New York law firm that I'm not recalling
`
`19 the name of -- of the firm right now.
`
`20 Q. Okay.
`
`21 A. I'd know it if it was said, but...
`
`22 Q. Sure.
`
`23 And where was the case pending?
`
`24 A. Where was the case tried?
`
`25 Q. Yes.
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`10
`
`
` 1 A. In Las Vegas.
`
` 2 Q. What was the trial verdict, to the extent
`
` 3 you recall?
`
` 4 A. They found -- they found infringement,
`
` 5 but they did not find -- but they also found
`
` 6 invalidity.
`
` 7 And going back, I testify- -- I was
`
` 8 planning to -- to revise a previous answer, I was
`
` 9 planning to also speak on invalidity and was prepared
`
`10 to do so, but the attorneys at the last minute decided
`
`11 not to have me speak about the invalidity --
`
`12 Q. Okay.
`
`13 A. -- about validity --
`
`14 Q. Validity. And so --
`
`15 A. -- of the case so I ended up just
`
`16 speaking about infringement and being cross-examined
`
`17 on infringement.
`
`18 Q. And just to make sure that I have a clear
`
`19 understanding, did your expert report address the
`
`20 validity issues?
`
`21 A. Yes. My expert --
`
`22 Q. But at trial, you didn't provide
`
`23 testimony?
`
`24 A. That's correct. That's correct.
`
`25 Q. Okay. So going back to the six
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`11
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`11
`
`
` 1 depositions you've given previously, do they all
`
` 2 involve patent matters?
`
` 3 A. They -- no. No, not -- not every one.
`
` 4 Q. Okay. How many of them involved patent
`
` 5 matters?
`
` 6 A. Five of the six.
`
` 7 Q. Okay. And was one of them the Silver
`
` 8 State versus -- was that Garmin that you testified at
`
` 9 trial?
`
`10 A. Yes.
`
`11 Q. Did you give a deposition in Silver State
`
`12 versus TomTom?
`
`13 A. I did.
`
`14 Q. Okay. So I guess that's a second of the
`
`15 six.
`
`16 A. Uh-huh.
`
`17 Q. Did you provide a deposition in Silver
`
`18 State versus Foursquare?
`
`19 A. I -- I don't recall, actually. I don't
`
`20 think so. I think that the third deposition
`
`21 revolving -- involving Silver State was an IPR --
`
`22 Oh, yes, I did. I did. So that was an
`
`23 IPR with Silver State versus Foursquare.
`
`24 Q. Okay. So just to confirm my
`
`25 assumption --
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`12
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`12
`
`
` 1 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 2 Q. -- so were the four patents-in-suit in
`
` 3 the Silver State litigation challenged in an IPR?
`
` 4 A. I -- I don't recall, actually, which --
`
` 5 I think it was just one of -- as I
`
` 6 recall, it was just one of the patents that was
`
` 7 challenged on the Foursquare IPR, but Silver State
`
` 8 versus Garmin, there were four patents both at the
`
` 9 deposition and at the trial.
`
`10 Q. Okay. In the Silver State versus Garmin,
`
`11 were all four of the patents challenged in an IPR?
`
`12 A. Not that -- that I was involved with.
`
`13 I'm not aware of that.
`
`14 Q. Okay. Tell me what expert witness work
`
`15 you did for Select Retrieval.
`
`16 A. Okay. Select Retrieval was the patent
`
`17 owner. There were a number of defendants. Overstock
`
`18 comes to mind. B&H comes to mind. And it was a
`
`19 patent around e-commerce -- a user interface for
`
`20 e-commerce Web sites and selectively filtering
`
`21 information on a Web site to successively narrow a
`
`22 search.
`
`23 Q. Who was the plaintiff's counsel in that
`
`24 case?
`
`25 A. It was Farney Daniels.
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`13
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`13
`
`
` 1 Q. Okay. I was going to say --
`
` 2 A. Took me a moment to think of it.
`
` 3 Q. -- I had some involvement in one of the
`
` 4 Select Retrieval cases, and I don't recall it any more
`
` 5 clearly than you --
`
` 6 A. Okay.
`
` 7 Q. -- so I completely understand.
`
` 8 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 9 Q. Did you provide a deposition in the
`
`10 Select Retrieval case?
`
`11 A. I did.
`
`12 Q. Was -- so Select Retrieval had sued
`
`13 multiple defendants, and I think that as I recall,
`
`14 those cases might have been consolidated for pretrial
`
`15 but were going to be separated out for trial.
`
`16 Did any of the Select Retrieval cases get
`
`17 tried?
`
`18 A. No. Actually, I was told that the day
`
`19 after my deposition, they settled.
`
`20 Q. Okay. So I'm just -- I'll see if we can
`
`21 approach it this way: I'm just trying to get through
`
`22 the -- your -- the cases involving your depositions,
`
`23 and we've got the three Silver State cases, Select
`
`24 Retrieval -- it might have been seven depositions
`
`25 because I think you had forgotten Foursquare, so can
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`14
`
`
` 1 you --
`
` 2 A. Well, I don't think there were four
`
` 3 depositions associated with Silver State.
`
` 4 Q. No. I think that -- sorry. I think
`
` 5 there were three.
`
` 6 A. There were three.
`
` 7 Q. Right.
`
` 8 A. And then I had one that was Location Labs
`
` 9 versus Locato.net and that was an IPR case for
`
`10 Location Labs, also involving GPS and user interface
`
`11 issues surrounding GPS technologies.
`
`12 Q. And did you testify on behalf of the
`
`13 patent owner in that case?
`
`14 A. Well, let's see. It was an IPR and it
`
`15 was for Location Labs, which was the plaintiff, so
`
`16 I -- I don't recall.
`
`17 Q. It probably was the challenger --
`
`18 A. Yeah.
`
`19 Q. -- if they were the petitioner.
`
`20 A. Yeah. That's what I would imagine.
`
`21 Q. Okay. And you provided a deposition in
`
`22 that case?
`
`23 A. I did.
`
`24 Q. Okay. Has a final written decision
`
`25 issued in the Location Labs case?
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`15
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`15
`
`
` 1 A. I don't know.
`
` 2 Q. Okay.
`
` 3 A. I'm not sure.
`
` 4 Q. Can you tell me about another case in
`
` 5 which you provided deposition testimony?
`
` 6 A. Yes. So three for Select Retrieval, one
`
` 7 for the Farney Daniels case -- I'm sorry, three for
`
` 8 Silver State, one is Select Retrieval, one is Location
`
` 9 Labs versus Locato.net, and the sixth was the Federal
`
`10 Trade Commission versus Amazon, and that was not a
`
`11 patent case.
`
`12 Q. And what was the nature of your testimony
`
`13 in the Federal Trade Commission versus Amazon case?
`
`14 A. It was an unfair business practice case
`
`15 that the FTC is alleging against Amazon, and the
`
`16 issues had to do with in-app purchases, the ability to
`
`17 purchase additional goods, virtual goods, inside
`
`18 applications, and Amazon's disclosures to parents
`
`19 about the possibility of in-app purchases.
`
`20 Q. Okay. And did you provide testimony on
`
`21 behalf of Amazon or the FTC?
`
`22 A. Amazon.
`
`23 Q. Okay. And what was the nature of your
`
`24 testimony?
`
`25 A. Well, I just mentioned what the case was
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`16
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`16
`
`
` 1 about --
`
` 2 Q. Uh-huh.
`
` 3 A. -- if you could clarify your question a
`
` 4 bit.
`
` 5 Q. Yeah, yeah.
`
` 6 So you provided some expert witness
`
` 7 opinions.
`
` 8 A. Yes.
`
` 9 Q. And so you described what the case was
`
`10 about.
`
`11 What issues were you --
`
`12 A. Uh-huh.
`
`13 Q. -- asked to opine on?
`
`14 A. Of course.
`
`15 Well, to clarify, they had several other
`
`16 experts, human factors user interface experts such as
`
`17 myself, providing mostly opinion about the Amazon
`
`18 interfaces and how well they disclosed the potential
`
`19 for in-app purchases to parents.
`
`20 The attorneys for Amazon that hired me
`
`21 hired me primarily to perform a user interface
`
`22 usability study, so I designed and ran a usability
`
`23 study that collected data representative of Amazon
`
`24 customers about how well they performed on the
`
`25 interface, what they noticed, what they understood,
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`17
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`17
`
`
` 1 and collected the data, analyzed the data, and wrote
`
` 2 that up in a report.
`
` 3 Q. Okay. Thank you.
`
` 4 In the FTC versus Amazon case, would you
`
` 5 say that your opinions were formed based upon your
`
` 6 human factors expertise?
`
` 7 A. They were certainly guided by my human
`
` 8 factors expertise, but my opinions mostly -- the
`
` 9 majority of my opinions were formed from the data
`
`10 itself that was collected.
`
`11 Q. Okay. This might be difficult to answer
`
`12 but I'll try anyway.
`
`13 So do you -- what general areas do you
`
`14 consider yourself an expert in? And right now, I'm
`
`15 not --
`
`16 A. Uh-huh.
`
`17 Q. -- just talking in terms of this IPR.
`
`18 A. Sure.
`
`19 Q. Would you feel comfortable providing an
`
`20 expert opinion in.
`
`21 A. Sure.
`
`22 Systems engineering; software
`
`23 engineering; software architecture and development;
`
`24 human factors; user interface design; usability; and
`
`25 even GPS technologies; and lastly, virtual and
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`18
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`18
`
`
` 1 augmented reality or sometimes called environments.
`
` 2 Virtual environments, augmented environments.
`
` 3 Q. What about computer hardware?
`
` 4 A. I don't consider myself an expert in
`
` 5 computer hardware. However, being involved with
`
` 6 software engineering for 35 years, software runs on
`
` 7 hardware, so you become very familiar with -- with
`
` 8 hardware.
`
` 9 Q. Okay. We don't need to mark this one.
`
`10 I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit --
`
`11 or was previously marked in the IPR and filed as
`
`12 Exhibit 1009 and represent to you that that is a copy
`
`13 of the declaration -- or your declaration filed in --
`
`14 by Lindsay Corporation in IPR 2015-01039.
`
`15 And we'll try to spare you the need to
`
`16 review every page and confirm it, but obviously if you
`
`17 notice that there's anything out of --
`
`18 A. Uh-huh.
`
`19 Q. -- any page out of order or missing, feel
`
`20 free to let me know.
`
`21 Is that your signature on the last page
`
`22 of Exhibit 1009?
`
`23 A. Yes, it is.
`
`24 Q. Did you sign the declaration on
`
`25 October 23rd, 2015?
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`19
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`19
`
`
` 1 A. This signature date is April 9th --
`
` 2 Q. Oh, I'm sorry.
`
` 3 A. -- 2015.
`
` 4 Q. Right. I have the wrong one.
`
` 5 Did you sign it on April 9th, 2015?
`
` 6 A. The one in my hand, yes.
`
` 7 Q. Yes. I'm interested in how you prepared
`
` 8 your declaration, and by that, I mean -- I mean as you
`
` 9 know, experts prepare declarations in a number of
`
`10 ways. Some like to write their own in their entirety,
`
`11 some work with counsel to develop a report, and I
`
`12 guess maybe others take what counsel has -- a
`
`13 preliminary draft by counsel and then edit it to put
`
`14 them in their -- the expert's own words.
`
`15 So can you describe for me how you
`
`16 prepared your expert report in this case?
`
`17 A. Sure.
`
`18 I reviewed the '357 patent, I reviewed
`
`19 the prior art, and I worked with counsel to draft this
`
`20 declaration. Some of the sections, I took the first
`
`21 pass at the draft; other sections, counsel, you
`
`22 know -- you know, through speaking with counsel, was
`
`23 able to come up with ideas that reflect my opinion.
`
`24 In the end, though, every word in this
`
`25 declaration represents my opinions and was thoroughly
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`20
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`20
`
`
` 1 reviewed by myself to make sure that there was nothing
`
` 2 in here that did not accurately represent my opinions
`
` 3 on this matter.
`
` 4 Q. So everything in Exhibit 1009 you've
`
` 5 adopted as your own opinion, whether you wrote every
`
` 6 word or not, and had an opportunity to edit or rewrite
`
` 7 in any way that you felt necessary.
`
` 8 Is that fair?
`
` 9 A. Yeah. Just to rephrase to make sure
`
`10 that -- that I heard you right and that we're saying
`
`11 the same thing --
`
`12 Q. Sure.
`
`13 A. -- that even if I didn't -- if, on a
`
`14 section, I didn't take the first draft of it, I edited
`
`15 every section so that it was -- it represented my
`
`16 opinion. It does represent my opinion.
`
`17 Many sections were first drafted by
`
`18 myself. A few were not. But there was
`
`19 back-and-forth, and in the end I took the final
`
`20 pass --
`
`21 Q. I understand.
`
`22 A. -- at making sure this represents my
`
`23 opinion in the matter.
`
`24 Q. Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
`
`25 A. You bet.
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`21
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`21
`
`
` 1 Q. I don't believe your declaration
`
` 2 indicates -- has a separate section that identifies
`
` 3 the documents reviewed in connection with preparing
`
` 4 your report.
`
` 5 Do you recall?
`
` 6 A. I don't recall like a "materials
`
` 7 considered" section.
`
` 8 Q. Yes.
`
` 9 A. No, I don't recall that. I don't recall
`
`10 that. But I can verbally let you know the materials
`
`11 considered.
`
`12 Primarily, it was the '357 patent itself,
`
`13 the subject patent, the prior art references of
`
`14 Pyotsia, Abts, Scott, Walker, AIMS, and I believe
`
`15 there was one other, too, that I -- I think it's
`
`16 fallen off --
`
`17 Q. Maybe Williams? I don't recall.
`
`18 A. That doesn't ring a bell, actually.
`
`19 Q. Yeah. Okay.
`
`20 So I want to try to get a -- as complete
`
`21 as we can list of the things you considered, in
`
`22 preparing your report, and I'll start off by saying
`
`23 that this isn't really a memory test, so is it fair to
`
`24 say that in your report if you indicate that you
`
`25 reviewed a document, that you then did, in fact,
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`22
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`22
`
`
` 1 review it?
`
` 2 A. Yes.
`
` 3 Q. So if we forget anything here but it's
`
` 4 identified in your report, we're comfortable knowing
`
` 5 you've reviewed it?
`
` 6 A. That's correct. Yes.
`
` 7 Q. Okay. Do you recall reviewing the
`
` 8 petition or a draft of the petition from this IPR in
`
` 9 connection with preparing your report?
`
`10 A. I believe so.
`
`11 Q. Okay. Do you recall, well, whether it
`
`12 was a draft or a final version of the petition that
`
`13 you reviewed?
`
`14 A. That I don't recall.
`
`15 Q. Was there anything in the version of the
`
`16 petition that you reviewed that you disagreed with?
`
`17 A. No. I -- not that I recall, no.
`
`18 Q. Do you recall whether or not you reviewed
`
`19 the prosecution history for the '357 patent?
`
`20 A. I did, yes.
`
`21 Q. Okay.
`
`22 A. I believe there's a parent patent to that
`
`23 as well. To the '357 patent.
`
`24 Q. Okay. And you reviewed the parent
`
`25 patent?
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`23
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`23
`
`
` 1 A. Yes.
`
` 2 Q. And its prosecution history?
`
` 3 A. Correct.
`
` 4 Q. Did you review anything else in
`
` 5 connection with preparing your declaration in this
`
` 6 matter?
`
` 7 A. There were a few other documents that
`
` 8 Scott Brown sent to me, although I -- I can't recall
`
` 9 them by name, but they were other, I think, decisions
`
`10 by the board and some -- one or two documents that you
`
`11 authored as well that I reviewed. Objections, I
`
`12 think, to my declaration that I reviewed as well.
`
`13 Q. But you probably reviewed the objections
`
`14 after --
`
`15 A. Yes.
`
`16 Q. -- you signed your declaration.
`
`17 A. That's correct.
`
`18 Q. The one that was filed.
`
`19 A. That's correct, yes.
`
`20 Q. As far as the board decisions, did --
`
`21 were -- did you review the board decisions before the
`
`22 declaration that was filed or after?
`
`23 A. I believe I reviewed those both before
`
`24 and after.
`
`25 Q. And did you base your opinion at all on
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`24
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`24
`
`
` 1 any of the board decisions or opinions expressed in
`
` 2 your declaration?
`
` 3 A. Not that I recall. I recall -- I don't
`
` 4 recall relying on the board's decisions as -- nearly
`
` 5 as much as the prior art and how that maps to the
`
` 6 subject patent.
`
` 7 Q. Okay. If, during the course of your
`
` 8 deposition today, you recall having relied on any of
`
` 9 the board decisions in connection --
`
`10 A. Yeah.
`
`11 Q. -- with forming your opinions, will you
`
`12 let me know?
`
`13 A. Absolutely. Absolutely.
`
`14 Q. Have you been retained by Lindsay as an
`
`15 expert witness in the past?
`
`16 A. No. Just for this case.
`
`17 Q. And by "Lindsay," you understand that I
`
`18 mean Lindsay Corporation, the petitioner in the IPR?
`
`19 A. I do, yes.
`
`20 Q. Okay. Have you been retained by the
`
`21 Hovey Williams firm for any matters in the past?
`
`22 A. No.
`
`23 Q. Okay. Do you know how you were
`
`24 identified as a potential witness in this case?
`
`25 A. I do. I do. I -- it was through an
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`25
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`25
`
`
` 1 expert witness search firm called Rubin Anders, I
`
` 2 believe, and Rubin Anders had my CV and I assume Hovey
`
` 3 Williams reached out to Rubin Anders looking for
`
` 4 experts and Rubin Anders connected us, so they're
`
` 5 essentially the intermediary.
`
` 6 Q. Okay. And you maintain a Web site at
`
` 7 www.userinterfaceexpertwitness.com, is that correct?
`
` 8 A. That's correct.
`
` 9 Q. All right. But they didn't -- as far as
`
`10 you know, in this instance they didn't contact you
`
`11 through the Web site?
`
`12 A. No. As far as I know, it was through
`
`13 Rubin Anders. Rubin Anders told me about the
`
`14 opportunity and set up the initial interview --
`
`15 Q. Okay.
`
`16 A. -- with Scott Brown.
`
`17 Q. Is it fair to say that you actively seek
`
`18 to provide expert witness services in litigated
`
`19 matters?
`
`20 A. Yes.
`
`21 Q. Did more than half of your income in 2015
`
`22 come from serving as an expert witness?
`
`23 A. Yes.
`
`24 Q. Okay.
`
`25 A. But not more than half my time. It's
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`26
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`26
`
`
` 1 interesting. I'm involved with a number of other
`
` 2 start-ups, too, that take a lot of time.
`
` 3 Q. So, yeah. I think I understand.
`
` 4 A. Uh-huh.
`
` 5 Q. So you invested more than half of your
`
` 6 time in start-ups and other matters that might produce
`
` 7 income in the future, or a small amount of income,
`
` 8 relatively small amount of income, at present --
`
` 9 A. Correct.
`
`10 Q. -- but the amount of time you did spend
`
`11 on expert witnessing in 2015, the majority -- that
`
`12 provided the majority of your revenue from 2015?
`
`13 A. That's correct.
`
`14 Q. Can you tell me what you did to prepare
`
`15 for your deposition today?
`
`16 A. I reviewed my declarations, I reviewed
`
`17 the prior art, and I met with Scott Brown yesterday.
`
`18 Q. And did you spend the entire day on
`
`19 preparation?
`
`20 A. I did.
`
`21 Q. In preparing for your deposition, did you
`
`22 review the petition filed by Lindsay in this case?
`
`23 A. Yes.
`
`24 Q. Did you review the patent owner
`
`25 preliminary response filed in this case to prepare for
`
`NextGen Reporting
`(888) 267-1200
`
`27
`
`
`
`Dr. Craig Rosenberg - January 12, 2016
`
`27
`
`
` 1 your deposition?
`
` 2 A. I did, yes.
`
` 3 Q. Okay. Did you review the board's
`
` 4 institution decision in this case to prepare for your
`
` 5 deposition?
`
` 6 A. Yes.
`
` 7 Q. Okay. Did you see anything in the
`
` 8 institution decision
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
