`
`EXHIBIT IIII
`
`To Defendants Joint Motion For
`Summary Judgment
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`wn-.00O-fraW,php
`DATE: 3-11 -I
`Sarah Hart, RMR, CRR
`
`SOLENIS EXHIBIT 2022
`Hydrite v. Solenis, IPR2015-01592
`
`
`
`Case 1:10 -cv- 08011 -LJM -DML Document 310 -41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 9479
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`Master Case No.: 1:10 -m1- 02181 -LJM -DML
`
`DECLARATION OF
`DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`IN RE: METHOD OF PROCESSING
`ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND RELATED
`SUBSYSTEMS (`858) PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`Case No.: I : I 0 -ev -0180 -LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:10 -ev- 08001- LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:1 O -cv- 08002- LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:10 -cv- 08003- LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:10 -cv- 08004- LJM -D1ì L
`Case No.: 1:10 -cv- 08005 -LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:10 -cv- 08006- LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:1 O -cv- 08007 -LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1:10 -cv- 08008 -LJM -DML
`Case No.: 1 :10 -cv -08009 -LJM -DML
`
`I, David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E., do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
`
`following is true and correct:
`
`1.
`
`I am a professor of chemical engineering at New Mexico State University. I hold a B.S.
`
`in chemical engineering from Purdue University and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering
`
`from The University of Oklahoma.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness in this matter by Defendants Al -Corn Clean
`
`Fuel, GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc., and ACE Ethanol, LLC, to provide expert
`
`opinions and testimony in the areas of chemical process engineering and design,
`
`specifically as it relates to the manufacture of ethanol from corn with emphasis on the
`
`process downstream of the bottoms of the beer column.
`
`74653828.1 0034919 -00008
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08011-LJM-DML Document 310-41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 9480
`
`3
`
`I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein, and am able and would
`
`competently testify as set forth below if called as a witness in this matter.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my March 22, 2013, expert
`
`witness report.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of my May 22, 2013, rebuttal
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`expert witness report.
`
`I am familiar with the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Claim 15 of the '858 Patent, claim 10 of the '516 Patent, and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-
`
`14, 16, 17, 19-24, and 26-29 of the '484 Patent, require "drying" of the "thin stillage
`
`concentrate" or "concentrated byproduct.-
`
`The terminology with respect to "dryings' as used in the Patents-in-Suit is well-
`
`understood, standard, terminology.
`
`9.
`
`As the term is used in the Patents-in-Suit, "drying" happens in dryers, rather than
`
`evaporators. While in both applications water is boiled off, evaporators tend to be closed
`
`systems, to permit recovery of the water for re-use at the front end of the ethanol-
`
`manufacturing process, and operate at up to 225 °F or at up to 245 °F in pressurized
`
`systems.
`
`10.
`
`Dryers, on the other hand, are typically open applications, and tend to Use gas-fired
`
`utility, such that hot air at up to about 500 °F is used to drive the drying process.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that the Plaintiff on page 97 of its July 23, 2013, memorandum of law has
`
`cited paragraph 99 of my March 22, 2013, report for the proposition that "a process that
`
`removes 51% of the oil present in the incoming thin stillage meets the substantially oil
`
`free limitation" of the Patents-in-Suit. This reference takes my statement out of context.
`
`74653828.1 0039919-00008
`
`
`
`Case 1:10 -cv- 08011- LJM -DML Document 310 -41 Filed 09/24/13 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 9481
`
`12.
`
`I have consistently opined that scientific principles require the term "substantially oil
`
`free" to mean that at least 90% of the oil present in the incoming stream is removed. In
`
`this regard I refer the Court to paragraphs 97 through 99 of my March 22, 2013, report
`
`and to paragraphs 3 through 18 of my May 22, 2013, report.
`
`13.
`
`I believe that my approach is consistent with Alwin Mfg..Co. v. Global Plastics, 629 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 869, 871 (E.D. Wis. 2009), as well as dictionary and thesaurus definitions of the
`
`terns "substantial," "largely," and "mostly."
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge and belief. Signed at /L ÿ/ 464-
`
`, New Mexico, this o
`
`th day of
`
`__-- ` strâ, P.E.
`
`,
`
`.D.,
`
`Davri A. Rock
`
`September, 2013.
`
`74653828.1 0039919 -00008
`
`3