David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________________
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
` Petitioner,
`v.
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
` Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________________
`
` Case IPR2015-01586
` Patent No. 8,841,469
` and
` Case IPR2015-01592
` Patent No. 8,962,059
`
` Deposition of DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D.,
` P.E., taken in the above-entitled actions,
` taken pursuant to all applicable rules, before
` Sarah A. Hart-Reinicke, RPR, RMR, Certified
` Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public in and
` for the State of Wisconsin, at Quarles &
` Brady, 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400,
` Milwaukee, Wisconsin on March 11th, 2016,
` commencing at 8:28 a.m. and concluding at
` 6:27 p.m.
`
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`SOLENIS EXHIBIT 2005
`Hydrite v. Solenis, IPR2015-01592
`
`

`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`BY: CHRISTOPHER J. FAHY, ESQUIRE
` 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000
` Chicago, Illinois 60654-3422
` (312) 715-5107
` christopher.fahy@quarles.com
`
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`BY: JOEL A. AUSTIN, ESQUIRE
` RICHARD T. ROCHE, ESQUIRE
` 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400
` Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4426
` (414) 277-5617
` (414) 277-5805
` joel.austin@quarles.com
` richard.roche@quarles.com
`
`APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.:
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`BY: JOSEPH LUCCI, ESQUIRE
` Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
` (215) 568-3100
` jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Mr. David R. Beine, general counsel
` Hydrite Chemical Company
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Exhibit 10 Alther article found in March 188
` 1998 Chemical Engineering,
` Hydrite Exhibit 1007
`Exhibit 11 ICI Americas, Inc. publication, 187
` "The HLB System a Timesaving
` Guide to Emulsifier Selection,"
` Exhibit 1008
`Exhibit 12 Summary Judgment of 282
` NonInfringement, SJ-N.I. Reply
` Exhibit 4
`Exhibit 13 U.S. Patent 5,283,322 dated 324
` 2/1/94, Martin, Hydrite
` Exhibit 1010
`Exhibit 14 U.S. Patent 5,558,781 dated 326
` 9/24/96, Buchold, et al.,
` Hydrite Exhibit 1011
`Exhibit 15 U.S. Patent No. 6,013,157 dated 329
` 1/11/00, Li, et al., Hydrite
` Exhibit 1013
`Exhibit 16 U.S. Patent Application 330
` Publication No.
` US 2007/0210007 A1 dated
` 9/13/07, Scheimann, et al.,
` Hydrite Exhibit 1014
`Exhibit 17 U.S. Patent No. 6,548,102 B2 332
` dated 4/15/03, Fenske, et al.,
` Hydrite Exhibit 1015
`
` (Original exhibits were attached to original
` transcript; copies to transcript copies.)
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 5
` TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
` DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D., P.E., called
` as a witness herein, having been first duly
` sworn on oath, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Would you state your full name for the record,
` please.
`A David Arthur Rockstraw.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, have you been deposed before?
`A I have.
`Q About how many times?
`A Fifteen to 20.
`Q Well, as you probably know, I'm going to be
` asking questions today, and I would like you
` to answer my questions with verbal answers.
` Nods of the head don't show up too well on the
` record that's being taken by the court
` reporter, so I would appreciate it if you
` would give me verbal responses.
` You'll be able to do that?
`A Yes.
`Q Okay. Good. If a question is not clear that
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
` I N D E X
` E X A M I N A T I O N
`BY MR. LUCCI: 5
`BY MR. FAHY: 336
`BY MR. LUCCI: 339
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`EXHIBIT NO. PAGE IDENTIFIED
`
`Exhibit 1 Patent Owner's Notice of 18
` Deposition of Dr. David A.
` Rockstraw in Case IPR2015-01586,
` Patent No. 8,841,469
`Exhibit 2 Patent Owner's Notice of 19
` Deposition of Dr. David A.
` Rockstraw in Case IPR2015-01592,
` Patent No. 8,962,059
`Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent 8,841,469 B2 dated 19
` 9/23/14, Hydrite Exhibit 1001
`Exhibit 4 U.S. Patent 8,962,059 B1 dated 20
` 2/24/15, Solenis Exhibit 2001
`Exhibit 5 Declaration of David A. Rockstraw, 23
` Ph.D., P.E., U.S. Patent No.
` 8,841,469, Hydrite Exhibit 1005
`Exhibit 6 Declaration of David A. Rockstraw, 23
` Ph.D., P.E., U.S. Patent No.
` 8,962,059, Hydrite Exhibit 1005
`Exhibit 7 Exhibit III To Defendants Joint 82
` Motion for Summary Judgment,
` Declaration of David A. Rockstraw,
` Ph.D., P.E.
`Exhibit 8 U.S. Patent 4,702,798 dated 161
` 10/27/87, Bonanno, Hydrite
` Exhibit 1006
`Exhibit 9 U.S. Patent Application 275
` Publication No.
` US 2008/0110577 A1, Winsness,
` dated 5/15/08, Hydrite
` Exhibit 1012
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 8
`
` there?
`A There was. This particular one involved a
` antimicrobial additive for oral hygiene
` products.
`Q Do you recall the next case prior to that in
` which you gave testimony in a patent context?
`A When you say "patent," are you also referring
` to trade secrets and -- or --
`Q If the case involved patents and trade
` secrets, yes. If the case involved just trade
` secrets, no.
`A I don't recall the one prior to that that
` involved patents. Most of them were trade
` secret matters.
`Q So as you sit here right now, you can't recall
` any other cases in which you gave testimony
` that involved patents besides the one in Salt
` Lake City?
`A Oh, yeah, I do. I recall the -- the one with
` Stoel Rives involved a corn ethanol patent.
`Q And what case was that?
`A The defendant that I was representing was
` Al-Corn.
`Q Could you spell that?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 6
` I ask or if you don't hear all of it, please
` ask me to clarify it or to complete the
` question.
` You can do that?
`A I will.
`Q Okay. I'm going to be announcing breaks at
` reasonable times, but if there's some time
` that you want to take a break, please let me
` know, and we can do that, okay?
`A Thank you.
`Q Do you have any medical conditions that would
` affect your ability to give testimony today?
`A No.
`Q No medications that you're on that would
` affect memory, recall, things like that?
`A None at all.
`Q Okay. You mentioned you've been deposed
` before. In what types of cases do you recall
` being deposed?
`A There's a number of cases involving trade
` secrets, fires and explosions, process design
` issues. All of them in the chemical process
` industries.
`Q Any other types of cases in which you've been
`Page 7
`
` deposed?
`A I would have to go through my CV in order to
` identify if there's others in there.
`Q No others come to mind?
`A Those -- that's the emphasis of the work I've
` done.
`Q Have you ever been deposed in a matter that
` involved patents?
`A Yes.
`Q How many cases have you worked on that
` involved patents?
`A A handful, five, six.
`Q When did you first get involved in a case
` involving patents? Do you recall?
`A I don't recall the first one. Again, I would
` have to go through my CV. It was about 10 or
` 15 years ago.
`Q When was the most recent time that you gave
` testimony in a case involving patents?
`A I was deposed on a case in Salt Lake City in
` October of last year.
`Q What kind of case was that?
`A It's a patent case.
`Q Was there a particular technology involved
`
`Page 9
`A I believe it was A-L, hyphen, C-O-R-N.
`Q What were the issues in that litigation? Do
` you recall?
`A It was the validity of a patent.
`Q So the company you were working for was
` defending against an assertion of patent
` infringement?
`A Yes.
`Q Do you recall what type of activities they
` were engaged in that were alleged to be
` infringing?
`A I think I might have misstated. It wasn't an
` infringement case. It was an invalidity case.
`Q So they were alleging a patent was invalid?
`A Correct.
`Q Was there an allegation by the patentee that
` your client was infringing?
`A There might have been. I don't recall.
`Q You didn't involve yourself with any
` allegations of infringement made against your
` client; is that correct?
`A That is correct.
`Q You were only engaged in assessing the
` validity of the patent that was on the other
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 10
`
` side of their case?
`A That's my recollection.
`Q Was it one patent or more than one patent? Do
` you recall?
`A I recall one patent.
`Q What type of technology did the patent claim
` is being invented?
`A I don't know how much I can talk about that
` case, because it's my understanding that it's
` been sealed.
`Q Well, if there's any -- I don't -- I'm not
` looking for you to breach any duty of
` confidentiality that you have, but as with
` most cases in federal court, there's some
` information that's publicly available.
`A Um-hmm.
`Q And if you could -- you know, if you only feel
` comfortable restricting yourself to that,
` that's fine. But with that in mind, I would
` still like you to answer my question.
`A And I don't know where the line is of what I
` can and can't talk about. I guess that's --
` that's something I'm not familiar with.
`Q Did you give testimony in court or by
`Page 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
`
`Page 12
` I'm saying he can answer that question. I'm
` just cautioning him not to get into the
` substance of our conversation.
` MR. LUCCI: So it's your position
` that there's a privilege between you and your
` expert witness on the substance of your
` communications?
` MR. FAHY: If it was made in
` preparing his declaration, for example, for
` this case, it could be work product, yes.
` MR. LUCCI: Counsel, I believe your
` position is incorrect as a matter of law. I
` would ask you to reconsider that and let the
` witness answer fully on my question.
` MR. FAHY: I said he can answer the
` question.
` MR. LUCCI: Fully.
` MR. FAHY: But I'm cautioning the
` witness not to get into the substance of our
` conversations. But you can answer the
` question that was answered -- that was asked.
` THE WITNESS: Could I have the
` question repeated?
`
`Page 13
`
` deposition or both in that --
`A Just by deposition.
`Q Is there anything you've said in your CV or on
` your website about that case publicly?
`A I have it as an entry in my CV, but it
` provides no detail; it just says who the
` parties were in the matter.
`Q And you've never told anyone outside of that
` case anything about it apart from what's in
` your CV?
`A No.
`Q Did you ever tell counsel for Hydrite anything
` about it?
`A I told them that I testified on the matter.
`Q Did you tell them anything other than the fact
` that you testified on the matter?
` MR. FAHY: I would counsel the
` witness not to get into any of our substance
` of our conversations because that's
` privileged.
` MR. LUCCI: Privilege on what basis?
` MR. FAHY: Work product as part of
` this case, the substance of what we talk about
` with our expert witness. I'm not asking --
`
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q I am asking for what you told counsel for
` Hydrite about your prior litigation that you
` mentioned where you worked for the Stoel Rives
` firm.
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Asked and
` answered. But go ahead.
` THE WITNESS: I told them that I was
` involved in a matter that was similar to this
` one, it involved the corn ethanol industry,
` and that I took a position that a patent was
` invalid and wrote an expert opinion to that
` effect and testified in deposition to that
` effect.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Did you tell them any of the substance of what
` you wrote in your expert opinion or testified
` about?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Asked and
` answered.
` THE WITNESS: They actually informed
` me that that particular matter was sealed.
` And at that point, I would not say anything,
` because I don't know where the line is. I
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 14
` have not confirmed with counsel at Stoel Rives
` to what extent I could talk about it, so I
` didn't talk about it.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Did you ever inquire of Stoel Rives or anyone
` else the extent to which your testimony might
` have been publicly available?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Asked and
` answered.
` THE WITNESS: I did not inquire
` about that.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q So over the last week or so -- let's broaden
` it out. Over the last two weeks, did counsel
` for Hydrite ask you about the substance of
` your testimony in the litigation you mentioned
` for Stoel Rives?
` MR. FAHY: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: They did not ask me
` about it. They told me that it was sealed.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Did you do anything to confirm or refute what
` they told you about this being sealed?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Asked and
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 16
`A In 2015 I would say it would be just under
` 50 percent.
`Q And the remainder of that would have been from
` your position at the university?
`A That's correct.
`Q And for 2014 what was the percentage of your
` income that came from your consulting work?
`A 2014 was a lean year. I would say it was
` about 10 percent.
`Q Over the last five years, what would you say
` the percentage of your income derived from
` consulting would be?
`A Twenty to 25 percent.
`Q And you are being compensated for your work in
` this -- these proceedings, aren't you?
`A Yes, I am.
`Q And what's your rate or manner of
` compensation?
`A $350 an hour.
`Q And you're aware that you're testifying in two
` inter partes review proceedings in the patent
` office, correct?
`A I am aware.
`Q So if I would refer to those as IPRs today,
`Page 17
` that would be something that would be
` acceptable to you?
`A I understand that acronym, yes.
`Q Okay. You understand. Good.
` So what is the value of the work that
` you've done so far in these IPRs?
`A Are you asking --
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Form. Go
` ahead.
` THE WITNESS: -- the total amount
` that I've billed?
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q I'm trying to get to the total amount that
` you've billed, but also worked amounts that
` you intend to bill but haven't billed yet.
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Any number I give you,
` of course, would be a guess based on my
` recollection. I did some work last year in
` the time frame of May to June that I think I
` billed out probably about $30,000 for. And
` this particular engagement to come here is
` probably on the order of 10- to 15,000.
`
` answered.
` THE WITNESS: I did not.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, could you give me your home
` address for the record?
`A 2008 Calle de El Paso, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
`Q Can you give me your current title as held in
` any businesses in which you participate?
`A I am the academic department head of the
` chemical and materials engineering department
` at New Mexico State University. I also hold
` the title of Robert Davis Distinguished
` Professor and NMSU Distinguished Achievement
` Professor.
`Q Are there any other businesses in which you
` participate?
`A My private practice, which -- David Rockstraw.
`Q What do you mean by your "private practice"?
`A I do consulting work.
`Q How long have you done consulting work?
`A I believe I got my first consulting engagement
` in 1997.
`Q For 2015 what percentage of your annual income
` came from consulting?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 18
`
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q And in between May to June until now, did you
` do any other work in connection with these
` IPRs?
`A Not on this matter, no.
`Q Now, are you aware that there's litigation
` going on that's related to the patents that
` are in these IPRs?
`A I think I heard something about it while we
` were sitting in the room yesterday, but I'm
` not familiar with the content of the
` litigations.
`Q You haven't done any work on the litigations
` involving the patents that are involved in
` these IPRs, have you?
`A I have done no work on it outside of this IPR.
` (Exhibits 1-2 marked for identification.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, I'm going to mark as Exhibit 1
` and Exhibit 2 -- well, two documents from
` these IPRs.
` The first is the Patent Owner's Notice of
` Deposition of David A. Rockstraw in
` IPR2015-01586.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 20
` to mark on the record as Exhibit 3 a document
` which has been marked as Hydrite Exhibit 1001.
` It's U.S. Patent 8,841,469.
` And I'm going to mark as Exhibit 4 a
` document that is Solenis Exhibit 2001, U.S.
` Patent 8,962,059.
` And I'm going to ask you if you've seen
` those patents before, Dr. Rockstraw.
`A Yes, I have.
`Q Those, in fact, are the '469 and the '059
` patents that we mentioned earlier?
`A Yes, they are.
`Q And you understand that those are the subject
` of respective inter partes review proceedings
` in the patent office, correct?
`A Yes, I do.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, if you could take a look at the
` first page of the '469 patent, that's
` Exhibit 3.
` Do you see there that on the left side of
` that document, on the front page, there's a
` number of different fields of information.
` But in field 60, which is about midpoint on
` the page, it refers to a provisional
`
`Page 19
` And the other one is Patent Owner's
` Notice of Deposition of David A. Rockstraw
` from case IPR2015-01592.
` I'm going to ask you if you've seen those
` before.
`A I suspect I received that's by e-mail
` attachment.
`Q Now, you'll note that Exhibit 1 relates to a
` patent that ends in the numbers '469?
`A I see that.
`Q Specifically, that's patent U.S. 8,841,469.
` Do you see that?
`A Yes.
`Q And Exhibit 2 relates to a patent that ends in
` the numbers '059, specifically 8,962,059. Do
` you see that?
`A I see that also.
`Q Would it be okay with you if during your
` deposition today we refer to those as the '469
` patent and the '509 patent respectively?
`A That would be fine.
` (Exhibits 3-4 marked for identification.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Just for completeness on the record, I'm going
`
`Page 21
` application that was filed on March 21, 2011.
` Do you see that?
`A I do.
`Q And so do you have an understanding of what
` that means there?
`A I understand that's the earliest date of
` filing.
`Q The earliest date of filing of this '469
` patent?
`A Of the '469 patent, correct.
`Q And I'm sorry, I misspoke actually. No, I
` didn't. Okay.
` And I'm going to ask you to take a look
` at Exhibit 4 now. That's the '059 patent,
` correct?
`A It is.
`Q And do you see about one-third of the way down
` the page there's a field 22. It refers to a
` filing date of May 27, 2011?
`A I see that.
`Q Do you have an understanding of what that
` refers to?
`A That's the date the patent was filed.
`Q Was that the date the patent application was
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 22
`
` filed?
`A That, I don't know. I would need to see the
` prosecution history of the patent to know that
` for sure.
`Q But at least that's a filing date relating to
` the '059 patent, correct?
`A Yes, it's the only date I see on the front
` page of the patent that references the filing
` date.
`Q So we have dates in 2011 that we just saw in
` the two respective patents.
` Was your involvement in this litigation
` with the Stoel Rives firm before or after the
` dates that we just saw?
`A That was after.
`Q So Dr. Rockstraw, a number of times today
` we're going to refer to your experience in the
` fields to which these patents relate. And I'm
` going to ask you to restrict your answers to
` your experience prior to the dates we just
` saw, May 27, 2011, and March 21, 2011,
` specifically before March 21, 2011.
` You'll be able to do that?
`A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 24
`Q And if you could take a look at Exhibit 6 that
` we just marked, your other declaration, and
` take a look at page 70.
`A (Witness complies.)
`Q And is that your signature on that document as
` well?
`A Yes, it is.
`Q So, Dr. Rockstraw, I take it there came a
` point in time when someone approached you to
` be involved in these IPRs; is that correct?
`A That is correct.
`Q Do you recall when that was?
`A That would have been late April, early May of
` last year.
`Q So it would have been late April, early May of
` 2015?
`A I believe that was the time frame. I would
` have to check e-mail communications to be
` sure. I don't know if it was an e-mail or a
` call, but it was in that time frame.
`Q Do you recall who contacted you?
`A It was one of these three gentlemen to my
` right. I don't remember which one contacted
` me first.
`
`Page 23
` (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q I'm going to mark as Exhibit 5 a document
` which is Hydrite Exhibit 1005 from the IPRs
` entitled: "Declaration of David A. Rockstraw,
` Ph.D., P.E., United States Patent
` No. 8,841,469."
` (Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q And I'm going to mark as Exhibit 6 a document
` which is Hydrite Exhibit 1005 from the IPRs
` entitled: "Declaration of David A. Rockstraw,
` Ph.D., P.E., United States Patent
` No. 8,962,059."
` I'm going to ask you, Dr. Rockstraw, if
` you've seen those documents before?
`A I have.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, if you could take a look at the
` declaration for the '469 patent, Exhibit 5
` that we just marked, if you could turn to page
` 91 of that document.
`A (Witness complies.)
`Q Is that your signature on that page?
`A Yes, it is.
`
`Page 25
`Q Well, just for the record, there's actually
` four gentlemen to your right. Could you
` specify a little bit more?
`A Yeah, it was either Richard or Joel or C.J.
`Q Was there a subsequent meeting that you had in
` connection with these IPRs?
`A There was.
`Q When was that?
`A I believe that might have been early June.
` Late May or early June I came to Chicago.
`Q What were you asked to do when you were
` contacted about being involved in these IPRs?
`A I was asked to look at the patents and provide
` my opinion on the patents.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, the documents that have been
` marked as Exhibits 5 and 6, your declarations
` in the IPRs, could you tell me how they came
` to be prepared?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: We had a number of
` telephone conversations; we had an in-person
` meeting. I wrote content about my technical
` arguments, and they helped me mold them into a
` legal document.
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 26
`
`Page 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
`
`A In the way I've listed them?
`Q The order in which you list them.
`A Not in the order, no. I've just thrown them
` out there.
`Q You didn't list intellectual property and
` trade secret law first to get the attention of
` people that might take your services in that
` area?
`A That's not the purpose that it's first, no.
`Q In the executive summary about that, you refer
` to some things that you've done. One of them
` featured pretty prominently is your testimony
` in litigation, and then another one is a
` recent patent infringement matter.
` How many of these bullet pointed areas of
` expertise are identified in your executive
` summary?
`A I don't know. I've never done a correlation
` to count how many of them were in there.
`Q Well, could you take a look now and give me
` your sense of that?
`A Many of the areas of expertise are not called
` out explicitly, but they're called out as
` the -- the specific area in chemical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Did you need much help?
`A I would like to think I've got some experience
` in this area and that I didn't need a whole
` lot of help, but I'm not a lawyer.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, you profess to have experience
` in patent law, don't you?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I have experience
` through my work as an expert witness.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q Could you take a look at Exhibit 5, your
` declaration on the '469 patent? Turn to your
` CV.
`A (Witness complies.)
`Q Around the middle of the page you have
` specific areas of expertise identified in
` bullet points, right?
`A I do.
`Q And the first one is intellectual property law
` and trade secret law, right?
`A It is.
`Q Isn't that saying that you have expertise in
` intellectual property and trade secret law?
`Page 27
`A That is saying I have some expertise in it.
`Q That's the first thing you have listed.
`A That was the last thing I added.
`Q So it's not to reflect that you have the
` greatest area -- greatest degree of expertise
` in that field as opposed to the others?
`A The fact that it's first, no.
`Q What was the reason you decided to put it
` first?
`A I recently started a pre-law intellectual
` property minor in my program at New Mexico
` State University, and to reflect that in my
` CV, I went to my areas of expertise, put my
` cursor at the beginning of the list, and added
` that entry.
`Q So these areas of expertise, which is the one
` you think you have the greatest level of
` expertise in?
`A I would say my greatest level of expertise is
` in the third and the last bullet items.
`Q And your organization of these topics isn't --
` well, what's your purpose -- is there any
` particular purpose that you have in the way
` you've listed your areas of expertise?
`
`Page 29
` engineering where I did those things.
` So my experiences in energy, water,
` petrochemicals, pharmaceutical, are the areas
` where I've done chemical plant design and
` activated carbon synthesis and things of those
` matters.
` So they're all in there somewhere, but
` they're not as explicit as the intellectual
` property stuff.
`Q Would you agree that your executive summary
` has a disproportionately high reference to
` your testimony in litigation as opposed to the
` other bullet pointed areas of expertise that
` you list below?
`A I do give quite a bit of description in my
` executive summary of my background in
` intellectual property law.
`Q More than the other areas of expertise that
` are bullet pointed, correct?
`A If you count on a word-for-word basis and just
` quantify the number of words that are
` dedicated to it, that would be correct.
`Q Is there a reason you did that?
`A I think when I wrote it, I was excited about
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`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
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 30
` the outcomes of those recent cases, and I
` probably was writing from that level of
` excitement.
`Q Your consulting work is fairly lucrative
` compared to your university work, isn't it?
`A At best, it's been 50/50.
`Q In terms of the amount you make for an hour
` spent of work, it's more lucrative than your
` university work, isn't it?
`A Yes, the university does not pay me by the
` hour.
`Q And doesn't pay you as much by the hour
` either?
`A That --
`Q Let me phrase that differently. If you take
` the hours that you spend on your university
` work and divide that by the salary that you
` make from your university work, the amount you
` make per hour is less than what you make on
` your consulting work, right?
`A I've never done that calculation, but I'm sure
` it is.
`Q Understanding you've never done the exact
` calculation, you've never figured in your mind
`Page 31
` that I'm making a lot more on my consulting
` work than I do per hour when I'm working at
` the university?
` MR. FAHY: Objection. Relevance.
` Asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: I said I recognize
` that I make more, yes.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`Q And did the recognition that you make more on
` your consulting work lead you to tout that
` more in your CV?
`A I didn't have those formal thoughts when I put
` that together, no. This was prepared from the
` excitement of success.
`Q Dr. Rockstraw, considering those areas of
` expertise you have bullet pointed on your
` first page of your CV, how many of those would
` you say relate to the testimony you've given
` in these IPRs?
`A I'd say four or five of them.
`Q Which ones come to mind?
`A Of course, the intellectual property bullet,
` chemical plant design, ethano