Patent Owner BASF Corporation’s
`Oral Argument
`
`Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey PLC v. BASF Corporation
`
`Case IPR2015‐01267
`Case IPR2015‐01266
`Case IPR2015‐01265
`U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023 U.S. Patent No. 9,039,982 U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709
`
`August 23, 2016
`
`1
`
`
`Oral Argument
`
`Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey PLC v. BASF Corporation
`
`Case IPR2015‐01267
`Case IPR2015‐01266
`Case IPR2015‐01265
`U.S. Patent No. 8,899,023 U.S. Patent No. 9,039,982 U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709
`
`August 23, 2016
`
`1
`
`
`
`BASF Patents: ’709, ’023, And ’982 Patents
`
`’709 Patent
`Filed: February 20, 2007
`•
`Issued: May 19, 2015
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`’023 Patent
`Filed: October 17, 2011
`•
`Issued: December 2, 2014
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`’982 Patent
`Filed: September 26, 2014
`•
`Issued: May 26, 2015
`•
`• Priority Date: August 5, 2003
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Claims
`
`’709 Patent (method)
`
`’023 Patent (system)
`
`’982 Patent (catalyst article)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐Oxidation catalyst
`‐Metered ammonia
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 20
`‐Washcoat loading of at
`least 1.3 g/in3
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐Oxidation catalyst
`‐Injector meters ammonia
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 16
`‐Washcoat loading of at
`least 1.3 g/in3
`
`Indep. Claim 22
`‐50%‐55% porosity
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Indep. Claim 1
`‐SCR catalyzed wall flow
`monolith
`‐50%‐60% porosity
`‐Pore size 10‐25μm
`‐Zeolite & base metal
`catalyst
`‐Washcoat loaded up
`to 2.4 g/in3
`‐Integrated NOx and
`PM removal
`
`Indep. Claim 16
`‐Washcoat loaded up to
`1.3 g/in3
`
`Indep. Claim 22
`‐50%‐55% porosity
`
`3
`
`
`
`BASF Patents: Solution To Challenge Facing The Industry
`
`Solution: Unique Catalyzed Filter
` Highly porous wall flow filter
` Porosity: 50% - 60%
` Avg. Pore Size: 10 – 25
`microns
` SCR Catalyst composition is part
`of a slurry-loaded washcoat that
`permeates filter walls SCR
` SCR Catalyst comprised of a
`zeolite and base metal of either
`copper or iron
` Catalyst loading up to 2.4g/in3
` Simultaneous effective chemical
`reduction of NOx and oxidation of
`soot
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Industry Required High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Ex. 1003 (Declaration of David L. Tennent, Ph.D. ) at ¶26
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.38).
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Industry Required High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So your testimony is that the industry as a whole believed
`that you needed a high amount of SCR washcoat to be loaded
`onto the walls of a high-porosity filter and you believe the
`industry believed that was required as of the end of 2002;
`right?
`A. Absolutely.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 105:10‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 38).
`6
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: No Art With High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So you don’t actually cite any art that discloses a high SCR
`washcoat onto a high porosity filter; correct?
`A. Not in that, no, I do not cite that combination.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 104:4‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`7
`
`
`
`Dr. Harold: No Art With SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. What’s your best estimate of when you first became aware of
`a published report of a DPF washcoated with an SCR
`catalyst, putting aside Hüthwohl?
`A. I believe it would probably be the BASF patent.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 152:24‐153:6
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motivations: Real-World Operating Needs
`
`When clroosing an SCR catalyst. tlrerefore.
`
`Efi
`
`‘-.‘e‘.\t'=I'~.’:'j.‘-.IJ?J".L:.fi|,
`
`ih'-aE~.'r=.."..'- ?'.h.'Ir2;?,‘.n'._ un:~;=:r::>;:<:=r:amy :1-r.-> 5.‘:-*:'.-iir‘:".r:"'.
`
`I
`
`I
`
`’J‘l'(-"'.u.'I1::.-'
`r-.
`-"-|'.'1.->-
`Y.‘
`'I. v_--
`~
`-
`.‘ _. '.J|._.-:-». iL:I_i]' *.1~;"}!_i..i
`
`.
`
`!-\‘r/
`r"r'.*--..‘.
`'I.'-'.
`-.---'--i--
`-;-.‘
`".-
`-_
`:;-;;J3.;.J!,.'i'.._._'._.:- _!L'-5'-4..‘-.,.'f-_J'.:1 |_'.J-1.4
`
`.f.-'-1.fi‘I..-v'.i'I---'.:..~ -3
`!;[J-._'-¢In__J.L_'.’_"-1:J|_!{
`
`.1
`
`backpressure. See. infra. § IVA (discussing the structure of wall flow filters and
`
`the k11ow11111ea11s to clear a filter of trapped soot).
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Motivations: Real-World Operating Needs
`
`wherein the
`wall flow
`
`monolith
`
`comprises a
`washcoat of
`
`SCR catalyst
`composition
`that permeates
`the walls. the
`
`SCR catalyst
`composition
`comprising a
`zeolite and
`base metal
`
`component
`selected from
`one or more of
`
`a copper and
`iron
`
`component-
`
`Hiithwohl + Hashimoto + Speronello, in view of
`Teraoka
`
`Speronello. Teaches an "iron andior copper-promoted
`zeolite catalyst.“ col. 3. line 60. prepared by "dipping” the
`substrate into a slurrv of an iron or c o J’ zeolite. col. ?.
`F-'
`r.r.‘-.=r.'-r-LI.:.-._-
`.<.1i "tr
`ufli'::-:r-'.- 1'-tn)‘: r.~.-r.—.tr.'t'a):L-. {fir-1:,
`
`n,.-»-‘uitc..:lI:¢;::c1:t-1:".-c.
`
`.
`
`_.'1:.
`
`.I"-1-;n'at;::;-.-:IE.LI-s:f'§'i'r1thJ!'!:t%-, “[B]}" utilizing suitable
`zeolite catalysts in accordance with the teachings of
`the present invention. high temperature gaseous
`streams. for example. gaseous streams at
`temperatures up to about 600" C .. maybe treated
`without seriously adversely affecting the life or
`efficiency of the catalyst." ('01. 6- lines 16-23.
`"Suitable promoted zeolite mate-rials demonstrate
`sufficient thermal and hydrothermal stability to ...
`provide an acceptably long life and efficiency of the
`catalysts." Col. 6. lines 23-25.
`
`.-"m5'f.'u. "II"-.=i'r.-.-v.-:un::.' "The tolerance of the catalyst
`material for such sulfurous contaminants is
`
`increased. i.e.. the catalyst is rendered more resistant
`to sulfur poisoning. by selecting" one of the
`disclosed zeolites. Col. 6. lines 38-41. "The most
`
`preferred types of zeolite for resistance to sulfur
`poisoning are those which have a pore system in
`which the 7 to S Angstrom diameter pores are
`interconnected in all three crystallograpltic
`dimensions." Col. 6. lines 46-49.
`
`I§:‘I.|..":_..~_;»'
`
`Il".t.-.u);~.r.pg:,t .~:;(:):: l.‘-,".'i'F;;.;. (ca. 31- ~._-7 The djgcloged
`
`Examples "demonstrate the [N0x reduction]
`efiicacy
`of the present invention." C 01. 8. lines
`1 2-13. "Tt will be appreciated that the catalysts of
`the present invention provide a simple and relatively
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivations: Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, p. 32).
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivations: Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, p. 25.
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply: Ignores Real‐World Operating Needs
`
`Paper 23, Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 3.
`13
`
`
`
`The State of The Art
`
`14
`
`
`
`No Pre‐Existing Answers For New EU Emissions Standards
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709, pp. 23‐24.
`15
`
`
`
`The NOx‐Particulate Tradeoff
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)) at 191
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 7).
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2000: Divide and Conquer
`
`Ex. 2034 (Guy R. Chandler, et al., An Integrated SCR and Continuously Regenerating Trap
`System to Meet Future Nox and PM Legislation, Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment, 2000), at .003
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 40).
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2003: Still Divide and Conquer
`
`Ex. 2027 (Philip G. Blakeman, et al. Developments in Diesel Emission Aftertreatment
`Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2003) at .007
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 8).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Key For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. So definitely in the ’90s the community would have known
`that NO2 was an integral part of an oxidant to help in soot
`reduction.
`
`A. As we talked about earlier, NO2 is a very good oxidant of soot
`and is key to bringing the light-off temperature of soot down
`and enabling passive regeneration to be more easily
`accomplished.
`
`A. So that the combination of a catalyst, the presence of NO2,
`which reduces the oxidation temperature, those are both key
`to the continuous regeneration to occur.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 98:12‐15, 101:23‐102:2, 102:21‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10‐11).
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Integral For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. The addition of NO2 to a large surplus of O2 can serve to
`reduce the temperature needed to combust the soot. So that’s
`well-known.
`Q. Okay. And that was well-known as of August 2003?
`A. I believe so, yes.
`Q. And that was an important consideration in passive filter
`regeneration as of August 2003?
`A. I believe so, yes.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 56:1‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10).
`20
`
`
`
`2005: Ensuring Adequate NO2 Supply ‐‐ A “Major Task”
`
`Ex. 2029 (K.V.R. Babu, et al., The Effect of Nox/Soot Ratio on the Regeneration Behaviour of Catalysed
`Diesel Particulate Filters for Heavy Duty Applications, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2005), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`21
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR To Preserve NO2
`
`Ex. 2027 (Philip G. Blakeman, et al. Developments in Diesel Emission
`Aftertreatment Technology, Society of Automotive Engineers, 2003), at .010
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`22
`
`
`
`2014: Filter Still Upstream Of SCR To Preserve NO2
`
`Ex. 2030 (Kenneth G. Rappé, Integrated Selective Catalytic Reductions—Diesel Particulate
`Filter Aftertreatment: Insights into Pressure Drop, NOx Conversion, and Passive Soot
`Oxidation Behavior, I&EC Research, 2014), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petitioner In 2000: Filter Upstream of SCR
`
`Ex. 2034 (Guy R. Chandler, et al., An Integrated SCR and Continuously Regenerating Trap System to
`Meet Future Nox and PM Legislation, Diesel Exhaust Aftertreatment, 2000), at .005, Fig. 3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 41).
`24
`
`
`
`2001: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2035 (J. Gieshoff, et al., Regeneration of Catalytic Diesel Particulate Filters, Diesel Exhaust
`Emission Control: Diesel Particulate Filters, 2001), at .011, Fig. 21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 41).
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner in 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap Systems: A
`4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .004, Fig. 1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 44).
`
`26
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`27
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl’s System
`
`Ex. 1006 (Original German‐Language Publication of Georg Hüthwohl, Bernd Maurer and Gennadi
`Zikoridse, The SCRT® system – a combination particle filter with SCR catalyst – enables both
`particle and NOx emission to be reduced simultaneously in commercial vehicle diesel engines,
`Proceedings of the Dresden Motor Conference, held in May 1999), at 136
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.34).
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NO2 Is Key For Soot Oxidation
`
`A. So definitely in the ’90s the community would have known
`that NO2 was an integral part of an oxidant to help in soot
`reduction.
`
`A. As we talked about earlier, NO2 is a very good oxidant of soot
`and is key to bringing the light-off temperature of soot down
`and enabling passive regeneration to be more easily
`accomplished.
`
`A. So that the combination of a catalyst, the presence of NO2,
`which reduces the oxidation temperature, those are both key
`to the continuous regeneration to occur.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 98:12‐15, 101:23‐102:2, 102:21‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 10‐11).
`29
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: No Synergy With SCR On Filter
`
`A. So soot traps and catalyzed soot traps were well along before
`it was demonstrated that you could combine or put SCR onto
`a diesel particulate filter. And it’s kind of an obvious reason,
`putting an oxidation catalyst on a diesel particulate filter
`enhances the performance of the diesel particulate filter,
`whereas putting and SCR function on a diesel particulate
`filter brings another function into the system. So it’s bringing
`two technologies together rather than optimizing one
`technology.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 110:24‐111:10
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`30
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Avoid SCR
`
`A. Well, if you can avoid the SCR, then you can focus, for
`example, on the particulate filter by itself, and that would
`enable a strategy of , for example, EGR to reduce NOx and
`then continue to develop the particulate filter without having
`to worry about yet another technology. So I guess that gets
`back to cost and complexity. So those are the main factors.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 143:21‐144:3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 16).
`31
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Obvious Benefits To Avoiding SCR
`
`A. I think also a significant cost is incurred by putting an SCR
`system on a vehicle. So there’s obvious benefits to avoiding it
`as long as possible.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 143:2‐5
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 15).
`32
`
`
`
`NH3 Oxidation Will Take Place On The Filter
`
`Ex. 2031 (Pranit S. Metkar, et al., Experimental study of mass transfer limitations in Fe‐
`and Cu‐Zeolite‐based NH3‐SCR monolithic catalysts, Chemical Engineering Science,
`2011), at .002
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 24).
`
`33
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Concerns About NH3 Oxidation
`
`Q. Okay. What were some of the other complications that arise
`from having to do reduction in a net-oxidizing environment?
`A. Well, definitely the one that we’ve talked about, ammonia
`consumption by oxygen, would be a tradeoff, no doubt about
`that. That would be the main one.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 116:8‐14
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 22).
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s NH3 Oxidation Complication Known in 2003
`
`Q. Okay. And this complication you mentioned about the
`reductant being consumed by the oxidant, that’s something
`that was known in 2003; correct?
`A. Uh-huh.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 113:14‐18
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 24).
`35
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: NH3 Oxidation Is Main Challenge
`
`Q. That’s what I want to know. What were the complications?
`A. Well, in a sense that’s a complication because you don’t know
`how much of that reduction will occur to supplement the
`reduction that is lost by ammonia consumption. So that can
`only be done by throwing everything together and measuring
`the outcome. And Hüthwohl showed that you can do it.
`So I guess in answer to your question, the main challenge is
`ammonia oxidation. And whenever you combine two things
`together, you don’t really know what the outcome is going to
`be because of all the synergies and couplings. So as
`Hüthwohl showed, without necessarily understanding
`everything, the benefits outweighed the risks.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 117:6‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 25‐26).
`36
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Put SCR On Filter To Save Space
`
`Ex. 1004 (Declaration of Michael P. Harold, Ph.D. ) at ¶34
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`37
`
`
`
`Space Concerns Did Not Motivate SCR On Filter
`
`Ex. 2018 (M. Shelef & R.W. McCabe, Twenty‐five years after introduction of automotive
`catalysts: what next?, Catalysis Today, 2000), at .012
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 40).
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Space Concerns Did Not Motivate SCR On Filter
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap
`Systems: A 4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .003.
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner in 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`Ex. 2019 (Andrew P. Walker, et al., The Development and Performance of the Compact SCR‐Trap Systems: A
`4‐Way Diesel Emission Control Systems, Diesel Exhaust Emissions Control, 2003) at .004, Fig. 1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 44).
`
`40
`
`
`
`The State Of The Art In 2003: Filter Upstream Of SCR
`
`41
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No NOx Reduction Data
`
`Q. Okay. And, in fact, we talked about this earlier, we don’t
`have any idea how much reduction of NOx is happening in
`that coated particle filter, do we?
`A. We don’t know.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 198:22‐199:2
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.35).
`42
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About The Catalyst
`
`Q. You understand – we talked about this earlier – we don’t
`know what kind of catalyst is being used in the Hüthwohl
`system; right?
`A. It doesn’t really get into detail on what SCR catalyst is used.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 193:15‐19
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`43
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Catalyst Loading
`
`Q. You don’t have any idea what the loading is on the particle
`filter, do you?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 203:9‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`44
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Catalyst Loading
`
`Q. Okay. And it could have been that the coating on the
`downstream SCR catalyst is substantially higher than the
`coating on the upstream catalyst; right?
`A. Or it could be less.
`Q. We don’t know, do we?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 204:14‐20
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp.36‐37).
`45
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Regeneration Mode
`
`Q. You don’t know one way or the other whether the Hüthwohl
`system is doing active regeneration?
`A. I don’t know.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 53:5‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`46
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: No Information About Filter Stability
`
`Q. He doesn’t tell you anything about the stability of the system
`during filter regeneration; right?
`A. I don’t believe so.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 194:25‐195:3
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.36).
`47
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: Unclear About Whether SCR Is On DPF
`
`Q. It says: “In diesel engine operation, however, this can only”
`be “achieved by combining a particle filter with an SCR
`catalyst.” Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And so that could be referring to using an SCR
`catalyst downstream of uncoated DPF, right?
`A. Right.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 189:1‐9
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`48
`
`
`
`Hüthwohl: Unclear About Whether SCR Is On DPF
`
`Q. But reading [Hüthwohl] as a whole and all the statements
`that he’s included in there, you agree with me, he’s not
`saying that the SCR catalyst has to be coated onto the DPF;
`right? He’s not saying that, is he?
`A. I can’t draw that conclusion because I can’t read his mind.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 195:5‐11
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 42).
`49
`
`
`
`Speronello: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`50
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motivation: Pick Catalyst To Survive Regeneration
`
`Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review, pp. 27‐28.
`
`51
`
`
`
`BASF’s Patents: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 700°C
`
`Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709), at 3:3‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.27).
`52
`
`
`
`BASF’s Patents: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 650°C
`
`Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 9,032,709), at 7:51‐53
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.27).
`53
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Regeneration Temperatures Exceed 800°C
`
`A. If you build up enough soot in the filter, you can easily see a
`temperature of about 800 degrees C, which would be
`detrimental to a zeolite structure.
`Q. And that’s even in the systems designed to primarily use
`passive filter regeneration?
`A. Yes. It all depends upon how the person drives.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 52:23‐53:5
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 28).
`54
`
`
`
`Known Zeolite Catalysts Unstable At Regeneration
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)), at 205
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp.29‐30).
`55
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Ex. 1008 (U.S. Patent No. 5,516,497), at 6:17‐22
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.28).
`56
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Q. Does the Speronello application provide any reason to believe
`that the zeolite catalyst disclosed in there would be
`hydrothermally stable at temperatures greater than 650
`degrees Celsius?
`A. Probably not because Speronello was limited to 600. so if you
`just look at Speronello in an isolated way, basically that
`would confine to applications where you don’t expect to
`exceed 600, which would be getting back to what I said
`earlier, CRT® application.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 224:22‐225:7
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 28‐29).
`57
`
`
`
`Speronello: Zeolite Catalysts Stable Only Up To 600°C
`
`Q. Okay. So someone of skill in the art in 2003 looking at
`Speronello would understand this as saying the catalyst
`disclosed in this patent will perform adequately and
`hydrothermally stable up to 600 degrees Celsius; right?
`A. Yeah. The answers is the interpretation is up to 600 degrees
`Centigrade for these particular zeolite catalysts.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 218:12‐15
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.29).
`58
`
`
`
`Speronello: Proposes Beta Zeolites
`
`Q. Well, let me just ask you: Based on your memory of having
`studied the Speronello patent and all the work you’ve done in
`this case, what are the specific types of catalysts that you
`understand are recommended by Speronello? Earlier you
`mentioned the beta. Are those the ones that you recollect?
`A. Well, I believe that beta was one of the zeolites.
`Q. Okay. What are the other ones you understand Speronello to
`be recommending?
`A. That’s the main one that I remember.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 72:1‐7
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`59
`
`
`
`Speronello: Proposes Beta Zeolites
`
`Q. So when you refer to “the Speronello catalysts” in Paragraph
`42, you are referring to the copper and iron beta catalysts?
`A. Right.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 228:22‐25
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`60
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: No Diesel Art Using Speronello
`
`Q. Your declaration doesn't cite any reports between 1996 and
`the filing of the BASF patent that involved the use of the
`Speronello beta catalysts for either coating a DPF or in a
`diesel after treatment system generally; right?
`A. Definitely not of coating a diesel particulate filter. Again, I
`only refer to five references in my declaration. That doesn't
`mean that there weren't other studies being done – I know
`there were – of copper and iron zeolite catalysts. There were
`a myriad of them going on in that time period.
`Q. But you don't cite any report involving the beta catalysts in
`the use of a diesel exhaust aftertreatment system, do you?
`A. I don't cite any, no.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 241:11‐242:1
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p.30).
`
`61
`
`
`
`Known Catalysts Inadequate For NOx Reduction
`
`Ex. 1011 (Chapters 8 & 9 from Ronald M. Heck and Robert J. Farrauto
`with Suresh T. Gulati, Catalytic Air Pollution Control (2002)) at 204
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 6).
`62
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Teraoka’s Zeolite Of “Dubious Use”
`
`Q. Now, we talked earlier about copper ZSM-5. That’s the
`catalyst that’s used in Teraoka and that’s the catalyst that
`we know is not going to have sufficient thermal stability [in]
`an active filter regeneration situation; right?
`A. Well, I think it’s recognized that its thermal stability is in the
`range of 6 to 7 hundred, so it might be of dubious use.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 235:17‐24
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 48).
`63
`
`
`
`Hashimoto: No Motivation To
`Combine And No Reasonable
`Expectation Of Success
`
`64
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Stability Required Thick Walls
`
`Q. And so in 2005 the belief of the skilled artisan was that due
`to the low thermal expansion – excuse me – the low heat
`capacity of cordierite, you had to have thicker walls?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And that was the understanding in 2003 as well?
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 131:8‐19
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 12).
`65
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Stability Required Low Porosity
`
`A. And when you add porosity to any filter material, you
`increase the tortuous path, it will decrease the effect of
`thermal conductance.
`Q. And that was understood not just in 2006 but in 2003 as
`well?
`A. Just a fundamental physical property; yes.
`Q. And that was the conventional wisdom in 2003 regarding the
`parameters that would impact the survivability of a filter?
`A. Absolutely.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 140:9‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 12).
`66
`
`
`
`Balancing Filter Porosity And Durability Was Not Routine
`
`Ex. 2020 (High Porosity Cordierite Filter Development For Nox/PM Reduction in
`Developments in Advanced Ceramics And Composites, 2005), at 2020.009
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 45).
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Hashimoto Omits Durability Issues
`
`Q. Right. But Hashimoto didn’t address the balance between
`high porosity and thermo-mechanical durability, did it?
`A. I don’t believe so.
`Q. Okay. And that was still something that was viewed as a
`challenge in 2005; right?
`A. Well, according to these authors.
`Q. Do you disagree with that?
`A. No.
`
`Ex. 2025 (February 9, 2016 Harold Dep. Tr.), at 210:8‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 46).
`68
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`69
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Long Felt Need Existed
`
`Q. So is it fair to say that as early as 1998 the industry felt the
`need for a system that could meet emission standards?
`A. Yes, I think it would be fair to say.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 77:13‐16
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 50).
`70
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Long Felt Need Existed
`
`A. If you came up with a solution for this problem, you would
`have the potential for a very large market, millions of cars,
`all the heavy-duty trucks.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 37:1‐4
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 50).
`71
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Nexus Between Claims And Emission Standards
`
`Q. Okay. Since you say this was required, those things that we
`just referred to, the SCR coating, the high washcoating, the
`high porosity, since you state that those are required, the
`skilled artisan would agree that those were the important
`and critical elements for meeting the emission standard, and
`saving valuable space; right?
`A. So it is certainly part of the requirements. I mean, it may not
`be all the requirements, but it’s certainly part of the
`requirements.
`Q. Those were important requirements; right?
`A. So those were important requirements.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 100:4‐21
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 51).
`72
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: No Art With High SCR Washcoat On Filter
`
`Q. So you don’t actually cite any art that discloses a high SCR
`washcoat onto a high porosity filter; correct?
`A. Not in that, no, I do not cite that combination.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 104:4‐8
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 39).
`73
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization Of SCR On Filter In 2008
`
`Ex. 2033 (Jong H. Lee, et al., Evaluation of Cu‐Based SCR/DPF Technology for Diesel
`Exhaust Emission Control, SAE International, 2008), at .001
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 52).
`74
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims Related To
`Coating Both Sides Of The
`Filter
`
`75
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims With SCR Catalyst On Both Sides Of Filter
`
`(IPR2015‐01267 Exhibit 1001, ’709 patent, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01266, Exhibit 1001, ’982 patent, Claim 15).
`
`(IPR2015‐01265 , Exhibit 1001, ’023 patent, Claim 11).
`
`76
`
`
`
`’294 Patent Only Coats The Outside Of The Filter
`
`Ex. 1003 (Declaration of David L. Tennent, Ph.D. ) at ¶44
`citing Fig. 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,753,294
`(cited in Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response, p. 58).
`77
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Product‐By‐Process Arguments Are Meritless
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments
`
`The Claims
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01267 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01266 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(cited in Paper 23, IPR2015‐01265 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, p. 21).
`
`(IPR2015‐01267 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01266 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`(IPR2015‐01265 Exhibit 1001, Claim 11).
`
`78
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`79
`
`
`
`Dr. Tennent: Declaration Lacks Supporting Data
`
`Q. Okay. And again, the details of that something you are not
`willing to provide due to confidentiality issues; right?
`A. Yes. I cannot tell you who we deployed materials to, no.
`Q. You can’t even tell us who was asking for the materials;
`right?
`A. No, I will not tell you who was asking, other than I will tell
`you in general it was catalyst companies and it was the car
`companies and the truck companies. But I will not give you
`specific companies, no.
`
`Ex. 2026 (February 16, 2016 Tennent Dep. Tr.), at 109:9‐20
`
`80
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 18, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR THE 2015-01265,
`
`2015-01266 AND 2015-01267 was served via electronic mail, upon the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Gwilym J. Attwell
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR38411-0005IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`/ Timothy J. Andersen / a
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
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
