Hydrite Chemical Co. v. Solenis Technologies, L.P.
`IPR2015-01586
`
`Transcript of the Testimony of:
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`
`June 1, 2016
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(1 of 45)
`
`

`
` 1
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 2 - - -
`
` 3 HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO., :
` Petitioner, :
` 4 : Case: IPR2015-01592
` : IPR2015-01586
` 5 vs. : Patent 8, 962, 059
` :
` 6 SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, :
` L.P., :
` 7 Patent Owner. :
`
` 8 - - -
`
` 9
`
` 10 Oral deposition of SCOTT D. KOHL, PH.D.,
`
` 11 taken at BakerHostetler, Cira Center, 2929 Arch
`
` 12 Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
`
` 13 Wednesday, June 1, 2016, beginning at approximately
`
` 14 8:30 a.m., before Maureen E. Broderick, Registered
`
` 15 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and of
`
` 16 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(2 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`
`Page 2 (2)
`
` 1 APPEARANCES
`
` 2 QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
` BY: CHRISTOPHER J. FAHY, ESQUIRE
` 3 300 North LaSalle Street
` Suite 4000
` 4 Chicago, IL 60654-3422
` (312) 715-5107
` 5 and
` BY: JOEL A. AUSTIN, ESQUIRE
` 6 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400
` Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
` 7 (414) 277-5617
` christopher.fahy@quarles.com
` 8 joel.austin@quarles.com
`
` 9 Counsel for Petitioner
`
` 10
`
` 11 BAKER HOSTETLER
` BY: DAVID N. FARSIOU, ESQUIRE
` 12 2929 Arch Street
` Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 13 Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
` (215) 564-8984
` 14 dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
` 15 Counsel for Patent Owner
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(3 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`
`Page 3 (3)
`
` 1 EXAMINATION INDEX
`
` 2 WITNESS PAGE
`
` 3 Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`
` 4 By Mr. Fahy 4
`
` 5 EXHIBIT INDEX
`
` 6 NAME DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
` 7 Kohl
`
` 8 Exhibit 1 Hydrite Petition 37
`
` 9 Exhibit 18 Notice of Deposition 31
`
` 10 Exhibit 19 '059 Patent 32
`
` 11 Exhibit 1001 '059 Patent 39
`
` 12 Exhibit 1001 '469 patent 40
`
` 13 Exhibit 1006 Bonanno Patent 56
`
` 14 Exhibit 1007 Alther Article 63
`
` 15 Exhibit 1009 Frison Paper 60
`
` 16 Exhibit 1012 United States Patent 78
` Publication No.
` 17 2008/011-0577 to
` Winsness
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` Exhibit 1020 '059 patent excerpt 62
`
` Exhibit 1021 '059 patent excerpt 62
`
` Exhibit 1022 "Crude Corn Oil 50
` 21 Separation at CVEC,"
` dated 12 June, 2009.
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` Exhibit 2003 Declaration 33
`
` 24 (Original exhibits were attached to original
`
` 25 exhibits; copies to transcript copies.)
`
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(4 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 4
`
`Page 4 (4 - 7)
`Page 6
`
` 1 - - -
` 2 SCOTT D. KOHL, PH.D., having
` 3 been first duly sworn to tell
` 4 the truth, was examined and
` 5 testified as follows:
` 6 COURT REPORTER: Stipulations? Will the
` 7 witness read and sign?
` 8 MR. FARSIOU: We'd like to read and sign.
` 9 - - -
`10 EXAMINATION
`11 - - -
`12
`13 BY MR. FAHY:
`14 Q Good morning, Dr. Kohl.
`15 A Good morning.
`16 Q Have you been deposed before?
`17 A Yes.
`18 Q How many times?
`19 A Three or four. I think three.
`20 Q Were each of those times a patent-related
`21 matter?
`22 A No.
`23 Q Can you go through each one for me and
`24 tell me the context of the deposition, please.
`25 A The first deposition, I was a
`
` 1 inappropriately used in the new company.
` 2 And the reason I was called was the
` 3 company I worked for was required to supply a person
` 4 familiar with at least part of that idea, and I had
` 5 given public presentations which had mentioned a
` 6 small attribute of this technology or idea.
` 7 Q What company did you work for?
` 8 A ICM, Incorporated.
` 9 Q Do you recall when that trade secret case
`10 occurred?
`11 A Probably sometime between 2011 and 2012.
`12 Possibly 2010.
`13 Q Do you remember when your deposition in
`14 that case occurred?
`15 A Sometime in that window.
`16 Q Did you testify at trial?
`17 A No.
`18 Q Just the deposition?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q Did you provide any sort of written report
`21 associated with that case?
`22 A No.
`23 Q Again, it was just factual testimony in
`24 that case; you were not hired as an expert
`25 consultant in any way?
`
`Page 5
`
`Page 7
`
` 1 disinterested third-party factual person. There's a
` 2 term for that type of witness. They told me what it
` 3 was, but I don't remember.
` 4 That case, or that deposition, I
` 5 cannot remember if the two parties that were
` 6 involved were -- had a patent dispute or why now
` 7 they had a dispute.
` 8 Q Do you remember the subject matter of your
` 9 testimony at all?
`10 A The issue was around phytic acid and
`11 phytase enzyme action patterns and locations that
`12 such enzyme could be added into grain processing
`13 facilities to liberate phosphate groups from the
`14 phytic acid for the purpose of reducing negative
`15 attributes, phytic acid it produces in the process.
`16 Q You don't remember the nature of the
`17 dispute between the two parties?
`18 A I think that -- I cannot imagine why they
`19 would have had those proceedings if there was not a
`20 patent dispute. I do know that the first company
`21 had -- no. It wasn't a patent dispute.
`22 It was an individual had left
`23 company A, joined or formed company B, and company A
`24 had what they claimed as trade secrets that they
`25 said company -- the individual who left the company
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
` 1 A That's correct.
` 2 Q Now, you mentioned that you were deposed
` 3 three times. That is one of them. Do you recall
` 4 the other two times that you were deposed?
` 5 A Yes.
` 6 Q Could you tell me about those?
` 7 A There was a contractual legal lawsuit,
` 8 dispute between the company I worked for and a
` 9 client of that company.
`10 Q What was the nature of the contractual
`11 dispute?
`12 A Performance of the system the client had
`13 purchased from ICM.
`14 Q What system was that?
`15 A A Bio-Methanator.
`16 Q What is a Bio-Methanator?
`17 A It is a system with four tanks, two which
`18 contain biological organisms, one which is a liquid
`19 conditioning system, and the fourth which is a
`20 nutrient delivery system.
`21 Q And what, in what process is that system
`22 used?
`23 A The facility which purchased it makes
`24 chondroitin.
`25 Q What's chondroitin?
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(5 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 8
` 1 A Chondroitin is a chemical extracted from
` 2 cattle trachea.
` 3 Q For what?
` 4 A A significant use of it is for human
` 5 nutrition.
` 6 Q How so; like a supplement?
` 7 A Yes. Glucosamine and chondroitin are
` 8 two supplements somewhat common in the U.S., and
` 9 elsewhere I assume, primarily directed toward joint
`10 health.
`11 Q What was the nature of your testimony in
`12 this contract dispute?
`13 A I was describing test -- testing
`14 procedures that the company, ICM, had used to
`15 develop the Bio-Methanator for that application.
`16 Q Was that testimony given as part of your
`17 job with ICM, or were you separately engaged in that
`18 contract dispute?
`19 A It was part of my job duties.
`20 Q Was it factual testimony or expert
`21 opinion, or both?
`22 A I don't think either of those adequately
`23 describes my role.
`24 Q How would you describe your role?
`25 A The client was suing ICM for poor
`
`Page 9
`
` 1 performance. And in the development of the
` 2 Bio-Methanator for that application, I was on the
` 3 development team determining what type of testing
` 4 should be done.
` 5 And the work that the group I was
` 6 with had produced was such that the Bio-Methanator
` 7 was recommended as the, as a workable solution to
` 8 the chondroitin plant need.
` 9 So I provided facts, and I was a --
`10 considered or am considered a skilled artisan in
`11 that discipline, but I do not know if my actual role
`12 would properly be classified as either of the
`13 two options you suggested.
`14 Q Did you provide a written report in that
`15 case?
`16 A No.
`17 Q Did you testify at trial?
`18 A No.
`19 Q Just the deposition?
`20 A The deposition, I testified at deposition.
`21 There was a arbitration. I participated in the
`22 arbitration. I don't know that that's truly
`23 testimony.
`24 Q What was the nature of your participation
`25 in the arbitration?
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
`Page 5 (8 - 11)
`Page 10
` 1 A In the arbitration the facts that had been
` 2 discovered were put forth to the arbitrating
` 3 individual, legal guy, third-party arbitrator.
` 4 And my role was to describe any facts
` 5 that he needed and a description of how the system
` 6 worked. And there were, there were legal points per
` 7 the contract that I knew about, but there were other
` 8 individuals that were prepared to discuss that
` 9 attribute with the arbitrating individual.
`10 Q So beyond your deposition, did you provide
`11 any other testimony to that arbitration panel or
`12 individual?
`13 A I am not well versed in legal. Can you
`14 define "testimony"?
`15 Q Sure. Were you sworn in like you were
`16 this morning? Did you raise your right hand?
`17 A No.
`18 Q Did you speak with the arbitrator
`19 directly?
`20 A Yes.
`21 Q Where was that? What setting? Was it in
`22 a courtroom, was it in a conference room?
`23 A It would be a room similar to this, and
`24 there were usually several individuals representing
`25 the plaintiff on one side of the conference table
`Page 11
` 1 and then several individuals, myself being one of
` 2 them, on the defendant's side, and the arbitrating
` 3 individual would be at one of the heads of the
` 4 table.
` 5 Q Was the conversation being recorded, for
` 6 example by a court reporter?
` 7 A No.
` 8 Q So it wasn't being recorded at all?
` 9 A Not to my knowledge.
`10 Q Who was the client that sued ICM in that
`11 contract dispute?
`12 A That is information that I can't reveal
`13 due to confidentiality between those two parties.
`14 Q So this was not a public proceeding?
`15 A That's correct. It was not a public
`16 proceeding.
`17 Q You mentioned a third time that you were
`18 deposed, right?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q Could you describe to me the nature of the
`21 dispute?
`22 A The dispute was between a water treatment
`23 company and an enzyme marketing/developing company
`24 regarding a product that both companies had on the
`25 marketplace.
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(6 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 12
`
` 1 Q What kind of product?
` 2 A It was a liquid enzyme formulation.
` 3 Q For doing what?
` 4 A Aiding in the processing of grain for
` 5 ethanol production.
` 6 Q In what way did the liquid enzyme
` 7 formulation aid in the processing of grain?
` 8 A It would reduce fouling potential in
` 9 certain locations, as well as reduce the need of
`10 exogenous calcium to be added to the slurry system,
`11 as well as increase the starch hydrolyzation rate
`12 and potential yield from the starch-to-ethanol
`13 process.
`14 Q The yield of what?
`15 A The yield of ethanol per unit grain
`16 processed.
`17 Q Were there any byproduct streams involved
`18 in that process?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q What were they?
`21 A Carbon dioxide, dextrins, glycerol, yeast,
`22 distillers grains. Distillers grains could be gone
`23 into with more granularity, if you wish.
`24 Q Please.
`25 A Byproducts include hemicellulose,
`
`Page 13
`
` 1 cellulose, corn proteins, lactic acid, succinic
` 2 acid, acetic acid, butanediol, phospholipids,
` 3 nucleic acids, cell walls composed of mannans,
` 4 glucans, free fatty acids, triglycerides, acrolein,
` 5 acetaldehyde, methanol, isopropanol, isoamyl
` 6 alcohol, n-Butanol.
` 7 There are a number of isomers of
` 8 longer chain alcohols. That's the majority.
` 9 Q Are each of those byproduct streams
`10 monetized in some way?
`11 A At some facilities, yes.
`12 Q What would be the purpose if they are not?
`13 A The only one that is not monetized is
`14 carbon dioxide at many facilities.
`15 Q And why not?
`16 A Carbon dioxide is a gas that needs -- for
`17 shipment purposes, is almost always compressed and
`18 chilled to form a liquid at high pressure. That
`19 system is expensive.
`20 The carbon dioxide market is
`21 historically known for thin margins or low
`22 profitability, and the major uses for cryogenic
`23 carbon dioxide involve metropolitan areas.
`24 So facilities that are a significant
`25 distance from metropolitan areas have the problem of
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
`Page 6 (12 - 15)
`Page 14
` 1 shipping their material long distances, and on
` 2 average, every day that that product is in transit,
` 3 approximately 3 percent evaporates into the
` 4 atmosphere.
` 5 So you can imagine if you have a
` 6 ten-day trip on a railroad, you lose 30 percent of
` 7 your product in shipment, making those -- giving
` 8 economic advantage to ethanol producers nearer the
` 9 use point than many of the ethanol facilities.
`10 The other major use is enhanced oil
`11 extraction. Those locations are -- you -- often in
`12 very rural areas, but don't necessarily have close,
`13 any closer proximity to the source from the final
`14 point of use, so a similar problem exists for
`15 shipment.
`16 Also, the market value for enhanced
`17 oil recovery purchase price for carbon dioxide is
`18 generally less than that purchase price for human or
`19 food use, which is where metropolitans -- what they
`20 usually use the product for.
`21 Q So it's a cost-benefit analysis in each
`22 instance?
`23 A That is part of the analysis.
`24 Q And despite the expense and thin margins,
`25 sometimes facilities choose to monetize the CO2
`Page 15
`
` 1 process stream, and other times they don't?
` 2 A Yes.
` 3 Q Was the dispute between the water
` 4 treatment company and the enzyme developer, was that
` 5 a patent dispute?
` 6 A Yes.
` 7 Q Do you recall the names of the water
` 8 treatment company and the enzyme developer?
` 9 A Yes.
`10 Q What were they?
`11 A The enzyme developer was Novozymes. The
`12 water treatment company was U.S. Waters.
`13 Q What was your role in that case?
`14 A I was an expert witness.
`15 Q What was the nature of your testimony in
`16 that case?
`17 A I was asked to look at prior art and
`18 compare to patents that U.S. Water had to see if
`19 prior art would have produced the same claims that
`20 the patents had.
`21 Q What did you conclude?
`22 A Prior art had already shown -- taught the
`23 industry how to do what the patents claimed to
`24 teach.
`25 Q So it was your opinion that the patents
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(7 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 16
`
`Page 7 (16 - 19)
`Page 18
`
` 1 were invalid?
` 2 A My opinion was that the claims that the
` 3 suit was involved with or cited in the proceedings
` 4 were invalid.
` 5 Q And you were hired by Novozyme; is that
` 6 right?
` 7 A There was a law firm that hired me. I
` 8 believe I was -- I was paid by Novozyme. Legally, I
` 9 don't recall who I technically was employed by. I
`10 assume Novozyme.
`11 Q Do you recall the name of the law firm?
`12 A Yes.
`13 Q What was it?
`14 A Fenwick & West.
`15 Q You said you were deposed in that case.
`16 Did you testify at trial?
`17 A No.
`18 Q Why not?
`19 A There was no trial.
`20 Q How was the case resolved?
`21 A The judge took all evidence from both
`22 parties and made a legal decision as to the result
`23 of the dispute.
`24 Q So the case was resolved before trial?
`25 A Yes.
`
`Page 17
` 1 Q Were you deposed just the one time in that
` 2 case?
` 3 A Yes.
` 4 Q Did you provide a written report in that
` 5 case?
` 6 A Yes.
` 7 Q So besides the three times we've discussed
` 8 here this morning, can you recall if you've been
` 9 deposed any other times?
`10 A Aside from those three events, no. Event
`11 number two, the deposition, went over more than one
`12 day. But there were no other events that I was
`13 deposed.
`14 Q Have you ever had your testimony excluded
`15 or stricken?
`16 A Not to my knowledge.
`17 Q Beyond the patent matter that you were
`18 just discussing and the present matter here today,
`19 have you ever been engaged as an expert witness?
`20 A No.
`21 Q So besides --
`22 A I'm sorry. I need to change that. Yes, I
`23 have been.
`24 Q In what context?
`25 A A dispute arose between a company that
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
` 1 processes distillers grains and a company that
` 2 developed a system to process distillers grains in
` 3 which a patent was issued. The company which owns
` 4 the patent alleged the company that was processing
` 5 distillers was infringing on their patent.
` 6 Q Was a lawsuit filed?
` 7 A Yes.
` 8 Q What were the names of the companies?
` 9 A Actually, I don't know that a lawsuit has
`10 been filed.
`11 Q This is an ongoing matter?
`12 A Yes.
`13 Q Do you know if this information is
`14 publicly available?
`15 A I don't think it is.
`16 Q And you're currently engaged, though, in
`17 this matter?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q Have you provided any sort of expert
`20 report or other testimony in that matter?
`21 A I have provided a three- or four-page
`22 letter in that matter.
`23 Q Was the letter to lawyers, to governing
`24 bodies?
`25 A The letter was to lawyers.
`
`Page 19
`
` 1 Q To the lawyers that engaged you?
` 2 A Yes.
` 3 Q So besides that current engagement and the
` 4 others that we've discussed today, any other time
` 5 where you've provided expert witness report or
` 6 testimony?
` 7 A No.
` 8 Q Dr. Kohl, what is your current title as
` 9 held in any business in which you currently
`10 participate?
`11 A I am the vice president of technology and
`12 process improvement.
`13 Q For what entity?
`14 A White Energy.
`15 Q What kind of company is White Energy?
`16 A I believe a limited liability company.
`17 Q What do they do?
`18 A They own facilities which produce fuel
`19 ethanol and vital wheat gluten, wheat mids, and
`20 distillers.
`21 Q Any other businesses?
`22 A I think those are the only things that the
`23 company makes.
`24 Q Are you involved in any other businesses?
`25 A Yes.
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(8 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 20
`
`Page 8 (20 - 23)
`Page 22
` 1 Q Have you licensed any technology through
` 2 Novum Prosses?
` 3 A No.
` 4 Q Do you offer any products or services
` 5 besides your attempt to license?
` 6 A No.
` 7 Q So besides White Energy, Novum Accessum,
` 8 and Novum Prosses, any other businesses you're
` 9 presently involved with?
`10 A No.
`11 Q How about your expert witness work; is
`12 that you as an individual, or is that through one of
`13 these companies?
`14 A It is through Novum Accessum.
`15 Q Is there a reason that Novum Accessum is
`16 not on your CV that you provided in these IPRs?
`17 A It's a recent development. The company is
`18 less than a year old.
`19 Q So your CV just may not be up-to-date?
`20 A Yes.
`21 Q What percentage of your income came from
`22 expert witness consulting in 2015?
`23 A Approximately one-seventh.
`24 Q Do you expect that to be about the same
`25 for this year?
`
` 1 Q What businesses?
` 2 A I am CEO of Novum Accessum.
` 3 Q Could you spell that for me, please.
` 4 A Yes. N-O-V-U-M A-C-C-E-S-S-U-M.
` 5 Q And what is Novum Accessum?
` 6 A It is a company for development of
` 7 technology.
` 8 Q What kind of technology?
` 9 A Primarily grain processing technology.
`10 Q What is your role as -- what are your
`11 duties as CEO of Novum Accessum?
`12 A I -- it is a sole proprietor company.
`13 Q Is it your company?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q Do you actually process grains, or is it a
`16 consulting company?
`17 A I hope to develop technology that can be
`18 marketed into grain processing facilities.
`19 Q But you haven't yet?
`20 A I have no patents issued from that
`21 company.
`22 Q Do you have any products?
`23 A No.
`24 Q Any services?
`25 A Yes.
`
`Page 21
`
`Page 23
`
` 1 Q What are the services?
` 2 A I will help companies troubleshoot process
` 3 problems or help recommend technologies or
` 4 mechanical devices that could help their facilities
` 5 run more efficiently.
` 6 Q So consulting?
` 7 A Yes, consulting.
` 8 Q So besides White Energy and Novum
` 9 Accessum, are you involved in any other businesses
`10 presently?
`11 A Yes.
`12 Q And what is that?
`13 A Another technology company.
`14 Q What is the other technology company?
`15 A Novum Prosses.
`16 Q Can you spell that for me?
`17 A N-O-V-U-M P-R-O-S-S-E-S. Novum Prosses.
`18 Q What does Novum Prosses do?
`19 A It is a technology licensing company.
`20 Q What is your role with Novum Prosses?
`21 A I am the CEO.
`22 Q Is it also a sole proprietorship?
`23 A Yes.
`24 Q And you own it?
`25 A Yes.
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
` 1 A No.
` 2 Q What would you expect it to be in 2016?
` 3 A Less than one-tenth.
` 4 Q But greater than one-seventh?
` 5 A One-tenth is smaller than one-seventh. So
` 6 it would be less than one-seventh as well.
` 7 Q What's the other boundary that you would
` 8 put on it, if you had to guess?
` 9 A The low boundary would be one-twentieth.
`10 Q You previously worked for a company called
`11 ICM, Inc., right?
`12 A Yes.
`13 Q What does ICM do?
`14 A ICM builds and designs fuel ethanol
`15 facilities.
`16 Q What was your role at ICM?
`17 A Developing technology.
`18 Q For fuel ethanol facilities?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q Was ICM a customer of Solenis, or vice
`21 versa?
`22 A Not to my knowledge.
`23 Q How about Superior Oil?
`24 A Not to my knowledge.
`25 Q And not Hydrite either?
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(9 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 24
` 1 THE WITNESS: Could you read the original
` 2 question that started this.
` 3 - - -
` 4 (Whereupon, the Reporter read
` 5 back a preceding portion of the
` 6 testimony as directed:
` 7 "Q. Was ICM a customer of
` 8 Solenis, or vice versa?")
` 9 THE WITNESS: And now the question is, was
`10 ICM a customer of Hydrite or vice versa?
`11 BY MR. FAHY:
`12 Q Correct.
`13 A Not to my knowledge.
`14 Q And your last role at ICM was that of
`15 technical director?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q What were your duties as technical
`18 director?
`19 A Broadly consider ethanol and grain
`20 processing technology compared with the technology
`21 that ICM offers, and make recommendations for either
`22 the acquisition partnership with other companies
`23 that had technology of interest to ICM or recommend
`24 and direct, at some level, research to develop a
`25 technology or system that ICM expected to be useful
`Page 25
` 1 but could not find that technology on the open
` 2 market or could not find it for a reasonable price.
` 3 Q What is the technology that ICM offers?
` 4 A Fuel ethanol facility.
` 5 Q The entire facility?
` 6 A ICM is the engineering firm that designs
` 7 the facility and provides some of the technology
` 8 used in the facility, and technology they don't own,
` 9 they recommend or specify what technology might or
`10 should be used.
`11 Q What types of technology do they actually
`12 sell?
`13 A Dryers, thermal oxidizers, selective
`14 milling technology, Bio-Methanators, Base Tricanter
`15 System, advanced oil recovery system, fiber
`16 separation technology, DCS control software,
`17 selective solids separation.
`18 I think there are others, but they
`19 aren't coming to mind.
`20 Q What is the advanced oil recovery system
`21 made up of?
`22 A It is made up of piping, control panel,
`23 centrifuge, flash tank, a second centrifuge, a
`24 receiving tank, various pumps, a holding tank, steam
`25 heater, a structure for control.
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
`(800) 899-7222
`
`Page 9 (24 - 27)
`Page 26
` 1 Actually, the second centrifuge is an
` 2 option. It doesn't need two, but...
` 3 Q Is that a disk stack centrifuge?
` 4 A No.
` 5 Q What kind of centrifuge is it?
` 6 A A horizontal bowl.
` 7 Q ICM ever recommend, as part of its
` 8 engineering offerings for a fuel ethanol facility,
` 9 to include a disk stacked centrifuge for recovering
`10 oil in the corn ethanol process?
`11 A Not to my knowledge.
`12 Q How long was ICM offering their advanced
`13 oil recovery system for sale?
`14 A It is currently being offered.
`15 Q When was it first offered?
`16 A Probably around 2010 or 2011. Probably
`17 closer to 2012. I'd have to look at records.
`18 Q What was your first exposure to recovering
`19 oil in the corn-to-ethanol process?
`20 A 2004 a process was investigated by a
`21 colleague of mine at ICM for recovering oil from a
`22 facility.
`23 Q What was that process?
`24 A A centrifugal separation of oil from a
`25 syrup stream.
`
`Page 27
` 1 Q Was that process ever implemented?
` 2 A Yes.
` 3 Q Was it successful?
` 4 A Yes.
` 5 Q So it did recover oil from the process
` 6 stream?
` 7 A It did.
` 8 Q When was that process implemented?
` 9 A At least as late as 2004, possibly
`10 earlier.
`11 Q Do you recall where that process was
`12 implemented?
`13 A It was in Iowa. I'm trying to -- I can't
`14 recall the actual plant name right now.
`15 Q It was used in a commercial facility?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q You mentioned a fiber separation
`18 technology a moment ago; is that right?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q What is that?
`21 A It's a system to remove fiber from a
`22 process stream.
`23 Q What kind of process stream?
`24 A Liquefaction.
`25 Q What's liquefaction?
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1023
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(10 of 45)
`
`

`
`6/1/2016
`
`Scott D. Kohl, Ph.D.
`Page 28
`
`Page 10 (28 - 31)
`Page 30
`
` 1 A It is the process by which starch in a
` 2 grain is converted to dextrins with the aid of
` 3 enzyme.
` 4 Q Is oil being extracted in that process?
` 5 A Not usually.
` 6 Q But sometimes?
` 7 A I know of one process that extracts oil
` 8 from liquefaction.
` 9 Q What is that process?
`10 A It is the Boss process, B-O-S-S.
`11 Q Can you explain the Boss process for me,
`12 please?
`13 A Yes. The Boss process uses a centrifuge
`14 and mechanical screen to take liquefaction material
`15 and impose high gravitational force to cause the
`16 low-density oil to migrate to the top of the
`17 high-density liquefaction sugars.
`18 The centrifuge recovers the, recovers
`19 some oil and returns the rest of the stream back to
`20 liquefaction.
`21 Q How was the oil that the process recovers
`22 used?
`23 A I don't know for sure where it's sold, but
`24 its properties would be similar to oil recovered
`25 from the syrup stream.
`
` 1 Q What is selective solids separation?
` 2 A A screen system that selectively removes
` 3 large suspended solids from a process stream.
` 4 MR. FARSIOU: If you're moving on to
` 5 another topic, are you okay? Do you need a
` 6 break?
` 7 MR. FAHY: Let's take a break.
` 8 (Brief recess.)
` 9 BY MR. FAHY:
`10 Q Dr. Kohl, a few moments ago we were
`11 talking about the liquefraction [sic] process.
`12 Do you recall that?
`13 A Liquefaction.
`14 Q Liquefaction.
`15 A Yes.
`16 Q And how long has liquefaction been used?
`17 A I think it started in the 1950's.
`18 Q And you mentioned that enzymes are used in
`19 the liquefaction process; is that right?
`20 A When I say 1950's, 1960's era, that's when
`21 enzyme-mediated liquefaction was initiated. Prior
`22 to that, there was acid-catalyzed liquefaction, but
`23 we didn't term it the same -- nomenclature was
`24 different back then.
`25 Q So in the liquefaction process, do the
`
`Page 29
`
`Page 31
`
` 1 Q So it is sold, though?
` 2 A Yes.
` 3 Q Does the addition of enzymes in the Boss
` 4 process aid in the recovery of that oil?
` 5 A Yes.
` 6 Q How so?
` 7 A Liquefaction is a hot process, and starch
` 8 gelatinizes at a temperature lower than that used in
` 9 liquefaction. The enzyme added needs to at least
`10 have amylase activity so the gelatinized starch can
`11 be cleaved into dextrins to reduce the viscosity
`12 that occurs upon starch gelatinization.
`13 If the viscosity is not reduced, the
`14 material could not be delivered or processed by a
`15 centrifuge.
`16 Q And the addition of enzymes helps reduce
`17 that viscosity?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q How long has the Boss process been around?
`20 A Approximately three years.
`21 Q Since 2013, approximately?
`22 A Yes.
`23 Q You also mentioned selective solids
`24 separation; is that right?
`25 A Yes.
`Gramann Reporting, Ltd.
`
` 1 enzymes get carried over into the stillage?
` 2 A The molecules -- an active enzyme, no.
` 3 The remains of the enzyme, yes. Think of a glass
` 4 coffee cup. If I smash the coffee cup with a hammer
` 5 many times, the glass will survive but the coffee
` 6 cup does not.
` 7 Enzymes are like that, where the
` 8 material is still present, but terming it an enzyme
` 9 is no longer appropriate, much like terming a pile
`10 of smashed glass is no longer appropriate to call it
`11 a coffee cup.
`12 Q Dr. Kohl, I'm going to hand you what is
`13 paper number 18 in IPR2015-01586. That is your
`14 Notice of Deposition in this matter.
`15 Do you recognize pa