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, )
` )
` -vs- )
` )
`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.
`
` August 2, 2016
`
` Chicago, Illinois
`
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`SOLENIS EXHIBIT 2028
`Hydrite v. Solenis, IPR2015-01592
`
`

`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D., P.E. EXAMINATION
` BY MR. LUCCI.................. 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`SR EXHIBIT MARKED FOR ID
` No. 1 Supplemental Declaration of 5
` David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D.,
` P.E., U.S. Patent No. 8,841,469
` No. 2 Supplemental Declaration of 5
` David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D.,
` P.E., U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
` No. 3 Alther reference 19
` No. 4 Atlas reference 23
` No. 5 original declaration of David 29
` A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.,
` U.S. Patent No. 8,841,469
` No. 6 original declaration of David 30
` A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.,
` U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
` No. 7 Handbook of Cereal Science and 43
` Technology reference
`
` No. 8 Patent Owner's Response, 74
` Patent No. 8,841,469
` No. 9 Patent Owner's Response, 74
` Patent No. 8,962,059
`
` No. 10 Decision IPR, Patent No. 74
` 8,841,469
` No. 11 Decision IPR, Patent No. 75
` 8,962,059
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`45
`
`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 5
` (WHEREUPON, certain documents were
` marked SR Exhibit No. 1,
` Supplemental Declaration of David
` A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E., U.S.
` Patent No. 8,841,469, and No. 2,
` Supplemental Declaration of David
` A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E., U.S.
` Patent No. 8,962,059.)
` MR. LUCCI: Whenever you want to swear the
`witness in.
` (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly
` sworn.)
` DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D., P.E.,
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Rockstraw.
` A. Good morning, sir.
` Q. And you understand that this is your
`second deposition in connection with the IPR
`proceedings that are pending between Hydrite and
`Solenis?
` A. I understand.
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
` The deposition of DAVID A. ROCKSTRAW, Ph.D., P.E.,
`called by the Patent Owner for examination, taken
`before CORINNE T. MARUT, C.S.R. No. 84-1968,
`Registered Professional Reporter and a Certified
`Shorthand Reporter of the State of Illinois, at the
`offices of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Suite 4000, 300
`North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, on
`August 2, 2016, commencing at 8:51 a.m.
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` QUARLES & BRADY LLP
` 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000
` Chicago, Illinois 60654
` 312-715-5107
` BY: CHRISTOPHER J. FAHY, ESQ.
` christopher.fahy@quarles.com
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` (via videoconference)
`
` BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
` Cira Centre, 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
` Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
` 215-568-3100
` BY: JOSEPH LUCCI, ESQ.
` jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`REPORTED BY: CORINNE T. MARUT, C.S.R. No. 84-1968
`
`1234
`
`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
`
`678
`
`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
`
`1
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, I've had the Court
`2
`Reporter mark as Exhibit SR 1, for Supplemental
`3
`Rockstraw, to show this being distinguishable from
`4
`your first deposition, SR 1, a supplemental
`5
`declaration of David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D. that was
`6
`submitted as Hydrite Exhibit 1025 in IPR2015-1586.
`7
` Do you have that there in front of you?
`8
` A. I do.
`9
` Q. And I've asked the Court Reporter to
`10 mark as SR 2 the supplemental declaration of
`11
`David A. Rockstraw that was submitted as Hydrite
`12
`Exhibit 1025 in the other IPR proceeding,
`13
`IPR2015-1592.
`14
` Do you have that there as well?
`15
` A. I have that also.
`16
` Q. And, Dr. Rockstraw, if you could turn to
`17
`the last page of SR 1. Is that your signature
`18
`there at the end?
`19
` A. Yes, it is.
`20
` Q. If you can turn to the last page of
`21
`SR 2. Is that your signature there as well?
`22
` A. Yes, it is.
`23
` Q. These documents are substantively very
`24
`similar, aren't they?
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 8
`1
` Q. Who prepared first drafts of these?
`2
` A. I believe I worked closely with Richard
`3
`Roche on the first draft.
`4
` Q. Now, the substantive statements that are
`5 made in each of these on the various publications
`6
`are the same, aren't they?
`7
` A. Repeat the question.
`8
` Q. The substantive statements that are made
`9
`by you in these declarations characterizing the
`10
`prior publications are the same, aren't they?
`11
` A. I believe that is correct. You mean the
`12
`same as my initial declaration or the two documents
`13
`are the same?
`14
` Q. That's a good question. What I was
`15
`referring to is the substantive statements made in
`16
`each document are the same as one another?
`17
` A. The substantive statements in SR 1 and
`18
`SR 2 are essentially the same, yes.
`19
` Q. Okay. So, would it be okay with you for
`20
`times at this deposition if we refer to the
`21
`supplemental declaration that you submitted for the
`22
`'469 patent, that is, SR 1?
`23
` A. That would be fine.
`24
` Q. As you sit here are you aware of any
`Page 9
`statement that you made of substance in SR 1 that
`you didn't make in SR 2?
` A. I am not.
` Q. Do you have SR 1 in front of you there?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. If you could turn to page 1 of SR 1,
`there is a statement there in paragraph II-A about
`the Alther reference. Do you see that there?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there anything that would have
`prevented you from making the statement you make
`about the Alther reference in your prior
`declaration?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't recall the details of how I
`described Alther in my first declaration.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Is there anything that would have
`prevented you from making this statement in your
`prior declaration rather than in your supplemental
`declaration?
` A. I don't see any reason why not, no.
` Q. Turning to page 2, there is a statement
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
` A. Yes, they are.
` Q. In fact, the only respect in which they
`differ are their citations to source documents in
`the respective IPR proceedings, correct?
` A. I would have to go back through them in
`detail again to confirm that, but that sounds
`correct.
` Q. That's your recollection, isn't it?
` A. It is.
` Q. Could you tell me how these came to be
`prepared.
` A. Much like my initial deposition, I
`worked with the team here at Quarles & Brady to put
`them together.
` Q. Could you tell me with a little more
`detail what that work involved on your part and how
`it proceeded.
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form. Go ahead.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. It involved communicating both by
`telephone and by e-mail, running through drafts of
`the document until we had it in a form that
`everyone agreed was ready.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`
`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
`
`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
`there in paragraph B relating to the Winsness
`reference.
` Do you see that there?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there anything that would have
`prevented you from making these statements
`regarding the Winsness declaration in your prior --
`I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that.
` Is there anything that would have
`prevented you from making these statements about
`the Winsness publication in your prior declaration
`rather than in this declaration?
` A. I see no reason.
` Q. And you see on page 3 there is a
`statement there in paragraph C regarding the ICI
`reference?
` A. Paragraph C?
` Q. Paragraph C on page 3, yes.
` A. I see it.
` Q. Is there anything that would have
`prevented you from making this statement about the
`ICI reference in your prior declaration rather than
`in this declaration?
` A. No.
`
`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
`
`"opposite"?
` A. I believe it depends on the situation,
`but opposite typically means something from the
`other end of a spectrum.
` Q. Opposite refers to a comparison of two
`things, right?
` A. It does.
` Q. What's the opposite in your work of the
`term "hot"?
` A. Of the term "hot"?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Cold.
` Q. The opposite of the term "dark"?
` A. Would be light.
` Q. The opposite of the term "lipophilic"?
` A. Hydrophilic or lipophobic.
` Q. Can you identify a surfactant that you
`consider to be hydrophilic?
` A. One that readily dissolves in water.
` Q. Is there a particular chemical entity
`that you can identify that you consider to be
`hydrophilic as a surfactant?
` A. A group that has polar characteristics
`to it would be hydrophilic.
`
`Page 11
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, do you ever use the word
`"opposite" in your work?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. "Opposite" is in my vocabulary.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Okay. And you use it in connection with
`your work?
` A. I believe I've used the word "opposite"
`in connection with my work in the past.
` Q. And how have you used that?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't recall a specific occurrence of
`using the word "opposite" at this point.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Is there a definition for the word
`"opposite" in connection with your work that you
`have in mind?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. There is not.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. How would you define the word
`
`Page 13
`1
` Q. Is there a specific molecule that you
`2
`can identify that you would consider to be
`3
`hydrophilic?
`4
` A. Typically a structure with an oxygen
`5 molecule in it has some hydrophilic character to
`6
`it.
`7
` Q. Is there a particular molecule of that
`8
`type that you have in mind by chemical name?
`9
` A. There is -- I mean, there's plenty of
`10
`them. There is many of them, but I don't have a
`11
`specific one in mind.
`12
` Q. Are you able to provide an example of
`13
`one as you sit here?
`14
` A. I believe the TWEEN series are primarily
`15
`hydrophilic.
`16
` Q. Do you recall an HLB value associated
`17
`with one of the TWEEN series surfactants?
`18
` A. One -- I didn't hear the whole question.
`19
`I'm sorry.
`20
` Q. Sure. Do you recall an HLB value
`21
`associated with one of the TWEEN series
`22
`surfactants?
`23
` A. I recall a range of HLB values.
`24
` Q. And what's that range?
`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
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 14
` A. Range would be greater than 10. 12 to
`15.
` Q. Let's consider a surfactant having an
`HLB value of 15. Okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. Would a surfactant that has an HLB value
`of 16 be a surfactant of the opposite type relative
`to that surfactant having an HLB value of 15?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't know that I would use the term
`"opposite" in connection with that comparison.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. So, you are saying that a surfactant
`with an HLB of 16 would not be considered of the
`opposite type relative to another surfactant that
`has an HLB of 15?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I would consider the one with an HLB of
`16 to be more hydrophilic than the one of 15, but I
`would consider both of them to be predominantly
`hydrophilic.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`
`Page 16
` A. Well, 15 is highly hydrophilic. So, it
`would have to be less than 15. Again, it would
`depend upon the HLB of the system in which the
`surfactants are being employed.
` Q. How much less than 15 would a surfactant
`of the opposite type have to be?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Again, I would need to know the HLB of
`the system that you're using these surfactants in
`to be able to answer that question.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Let's just consider the surfactant
`having an HLB of 15. Let's assume that's the only
`surfactant or emulsifier in the system. What would
`a surfactant or emulsifier of the opposite type be
`relative to that surfactant having an HLB of 15?
` A. So, the system being pure water?
` Q. It's an emulsion so it's going to have
`water and oil?
` A. Right. And so I would need to know the
`HLB of the water-oil system in which the surfactant
`is being employed.
` Q. Let's assume it's corn oil.
`
`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 15
` Q. And neither would be considered of the
`opposite type relative to the other in terms of its
`hydrophilic character, would it?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't know that there is a value on
`the HLB scale that represents the dividing line
`between hydrophilic and hydrophobic because all
`surfactants have both hydrophilic and hydrophobic
`content to them. That's what makes them work at an
`interface between two phases.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Does the term "surfactant of the
`opposite type" have meaning with respect to a
`surfactant having an HLB of 15?
` A. I would add another component to that
`comparison, and that would be the system in which
`the surfactants are being employed.
` Q. So, if you were to identify a surfactant
`of the opposite type relative to a surfactant
`having an HLB of 15, what range of HLB values would
`you ascribe to that surfactant?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`Page 17
` A. So we are talking about an HLB of 10
`then.
` Q. We are talking about a system that has
`water and corn oil and a surfactant having an HLB
`of 15. Now, in that system what would you consider
`to be a surfactant of the opposite type?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Something less than 10.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. So, a surfactant having an HLB of 14
`would not be a surfactant of the opposite type
`relative to that surfactant having an HLB of 15 in
`that system, right?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. For the system we have just described,
`that is correct.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Are there any systems in which you would
`regard a surfactant having an HLB of 14 to be of
`the opposite type relative to a surfactant having
`an HLB of 15?
` A. A system in which the aqueous and oil
`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
`
`

`
`Page 20
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 18
`1
`phases compose an HLB of between 14 and 15, yes.
`2
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, are you aware of any
`3
`systems produced by -- let me back up.
`4
` You're familiar with the -- these IPRs
`5
`relate to systems in which ethanol is produced from
`6
`corn, correct?
`7
` A. I'm familiar with the process, yes.
`8
` Q. Are you aware of any emulsions produced
`9
`pursuant to the production of ethanol from corn
`10
`that have HLB in that 14-15 range that you
`11 mentioned?
`12
` A. Not as I sit here, no.
`13
` Q. And no such system is described in any
`14
`of your current or prior declarations, correct?
`15
` A. I don't recall noting an HLB of 14 to 15
`16
`for any of the systems that I've used in my
`17
`declarations.
`18
` Q. Do you know whether it's possible in the
`19
`production of ethanol from corn to generate an
`20
`emulsion that has an HLB in the range of 14 to 15
`21
`that you just mentioned?
`22
` A. I don't know if it's possible.
`23
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, do you ever use the term
`24
`"or," o-r, in your work?
`
`1
` reference.)
`2
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`3
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, you have in front of you
`4
`a document which is marked as Exhibit SR 3 in
`5
`connection with this deposition and it's also been
`6 marked as Hydrite Exhibit 1007 in connection with
`7
`the Inter Partes Review proceedings.
`8
` Do you see that there?
`9
` A. I do.
`10
` Q. And this is a publication that we
`11
`referred to as the Alther publication, right?
`12
` A. That is correct.
`13
` Q. Now, I'll ask you to turn to page --
`14
`well, you see in the exhibit there is down at the
`15
`bottom where it says Hydrite Exhibit 1007, it has
`16
`parenthetically 1 of 10?
`17
` A. I see that.
`18
` Q. So that's a pagination system that's
`19
`been put on it. I will ask you to look at the
`20
`page that's been marked 5 of 10.
`21
` A. I'm there.
`22
` Q. It has the big letters down in the
`23
`bottom of it "Wastewater Emulsions."
`24
` Do you see that page?
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`2
`BY THE WITNESS:
`3
` A. I use the conjunction "or," yes.
`4
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`5
` Q. And what's that mean as you use it?
`6
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`7
`BY THE WITNESS:
`8
` A. It's connecting two options essentially.
`9
`BY MR. LUCCI:
`10
` Q. And those things it's connecting are
`11
`alternatives to one another, correct?
`12
` A. Correct.
`13
` MR. LUCCI: CJ, do you have a copy there of
`14
`the Alther reference?
`15
` MR. FAHY: I do.
`16
` MR. LUCCI: How is that marked as you have it?
`17
`Is it marked as Hydrite Exhibit 1007 or is it from
`18
`his prior deposition?
`19
` MR. FAHY: It is just Hydrite Exhibit 1007.
`20
` MR. LUCCI: Okay. That's fine. If you could
`21
`hand that to the Court Reporter. This could be
`22 marked as Exhibit SR 3.
`23
` (WHEREUPON, a certain document was
`24
` marked as SR Exhibit No. 3: Alther
`
` A. I do.
` Q. Now, particularly there is a box there
`in the middle of that page that runs up and down
`the middle of the page.
` Do you see that box?
` A. I see it.
` Q. And down in the bottom of the box the
`last paragraph appears there and it begins, "To
`counter the effects of emulsifiers that enhance
`dispersion, suspension and wetting of particles,
`emulsifiers of the opposite type, which can disrupt
`the HLB, can be applied."
` Do you see that sentence?
` A. I do.
` Q. So, Alther there refers to "emulsifiers
`of the opposite type" to "counter the effects of
`emulsifiers that enhance dispersion, suspension and
`wetting of particles," correct?
` A. That's what he says, yes.
` Q. And that's a comparison of one
`emulsifier to another emulsifier, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And consistent with that in Alther's
`next sentence, Alther states that one's choice of
`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
`
`

`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 22
`1
`emulsifier to counter another emulsifier depends on
`2
`the emulsion that you're dealing with, right?
`3
` A. That is correct.
`4
` Q. And it says that for some emulsions you
`5
`want to use a strongly hydrophilic surfactant such
`6
`as Polysorbate 80, right?
`7
` A. Yes.
`8
` Q. Whereas for other emulsions you want to
`9
`use a strongly lipophilic surfactant such as
`10 monoglyceryl or diglyceryl oleate, right?
`11
` A. That's what he says, yes.
`12
` Q. So, when Alther refers to the use of a
`13
`"strongly hydrophilic surfactant or a strongly
`14
`lipophilic surfactant," the authors aren't
`15
`suggesting to use either of these surfactants on
`16
`the same emulsion, are they?
`17
` A. He's saying it depends upon the nature
`18
`of the emulsion which one you select.
`19
` Q. Right. And depending on the nature of
`20
`the emulsion, you're going to use either a strongly
`21
`hydrophilic surfactant or a strongly lipophilic
`22
`surfactant, right?
`23
` A. Based on his statement, yes.
`24
` Q. You're not going to use both of those on
`Page 23
`the same emulsion system, are you? You're going to
`pick one as opposed to the other?
` A. That is correct.
` MR. LUCCI: CJ, do you have the Atlas
`reference there?
` MR. FAHY: I do.
` MR. LUCCI: Could you hand that to the Court
`Reporter. I'd like to have that marked as SR 4.
` MR. FAHY: Sure. And this is Exhibit 1027 in
`IPR that ends in 1586.
` MR. LUCCI: Right.
` (WHEREUPON, a certain document was
` marked as SR Exhibit No. 4: Atlas
` reference.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Is that in front of you now,
`Dr. Rockstraw?
` A. I do.
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, were you aware of this
`Atlas reference when you prepared your prior
`declaration?
` A. I have not seen it before.
` Q. You had not seen it before you prepared
`your prior declaration?
`
` A. Prior meaning my first one?
` Q. Right. So just so I could set things
`up. You recall that in these IPR proceedings you
`submitted a declaration in each IPR, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And, in fact, in your supplemental
`declarations that you have in front of you, you
`refer to those as your "Original Declarations,"
`capital O, capital D, correct?
` A. Right.
` Q. So, my question is, is that were you
`aware of this Atlas reference when you prepared
`those original declarations?
` A. I was not. I had not seen it.
` Q. How did you come to be aware of this
`Atlas publication?
` A. Richard Roche shared it with me.
` Q. Do you have an understanding as to how
`he became aware of it?
` A. I don't know for sure. I assume he was
`doing research and came across it.
` Q. He didn't say anything to you about how
`he came across it?
` A. If he did, it didn't register with me.
`Page 25
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, we have discussed in your
`prior deposition and it's also discussed in your
`current declarations that we are dealing with in
`these IPRs two patents that we've referred to as
`the '059 patent for one IPR and the '469 patent for
`the other IPR. You're familiar with those terms,
`'059 patent and '469 patent, right?
` A. I am.
` Q. And you're aware that for both patents
`they each have a filing date, correct, when they
`were filed with the Patent Office?
` A. I'm aware of that.
` Q. And is it consistent with your
`recollection of these patents that the '469 patent
`was -- had a first filing date in 2011,
`specifically March 21, 2011?
` A. I recall that, yes.
` Q. And the '059 patent has a first filing
`date in May of 2011, specifically, May 27. Is that
`consistent with your recollection?
` A. It is. It came later.
` Q. Now, in that 2011 time frame, do you
`have an understanding as to whether or not people
`working in the field to which those patents relate
`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
`
`Page 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 28
`
`1
`language to mean?
`2
` A. That's a comparison between the HLB of
`3
`the surfactant and the HLB of the system that
`4
`comprises the emulsion.
`5
` Q. How does one determine the HLB of a
`6
`system that comprises an emulsion?
`7
` A. There is ways of experimentally
`8 measuring it or you can reference documents where
`9
`it's already been measured and they're tabulated
`10
`for numerous systems as in the ICI document that I
`11
`cited in my original declarations.
`12
` Q. The quoted language you have from Atlas
`13
`that you quote in paragraph 17 of your declaration,
`14
`when that refers to the "HLB opposing that for the
`15
`emulsion being treated," is that a reference to the
`16
`HLB of the emulsion itself or to the HLB of one of
`17
`its components?
`18
` A. It's my understanding that it's making
`19
`the comparison between the HLB of the emulsion
`20
`system. So, it wouldn't be one of its components.
`21
`It would be all of its components.
`22
` Q. Is there any publication cited in either
`23
`of your original declarations that makes a
`24
`reference like that to the HLB of the emulsion
`Page 29
`
`David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E.
`Page 26
`1
`were using and referring to this Atlas publication?
`2
` A. I do not.
`3
` Q. You don't have an understanding as to
`4
`whether or not this Atlas publication is the type
`5
`of reference that people working in the field to
`6
`which the patents relate would have consulted?
`7
` A. I would expect anybody working with
`8
`surfactants to have consulted a document of this
`9
`type. Whether it be by Atlas or ICI or some other
`10
`surfactant manufacturer, I would have expected them
`11
`to turn to something like this to guide them in
`12
`their selection of materials.
`13
` Q. Now, it is true, Dr. Rockstraw, isn't
`14
`it, that this Atlas publication is nowhere
`15 mentioned in either of your original declarations?
`16
` A. That is true, it is not.
`17
` Q. Are you aware of any reason that you
`18
`couldn't have cited this Atlas publication when you
`19
`prepared those original declarations?
`20
` A. I am going to ask you to repeat the
`21
`question, please.
`22
` Q. Sure. Are you aware of any reason you
`23
`could not have cited this Atlas publication when
`24
`you prepared your original declarations?
`Page 27
` A. I'm not aware of any reason I could not
`have cited it.
` Q. I mean, this publication says that it
`published in 1950, correct? You can take a look at
`page 3 of the document, for example.
` A. Yes, I see the copyright 1950.
` Q. Dr. Rockstraw, if you could refer to
`the -- your declaration, your supplemental
`declaration for the '469 patent, which should be
`Exhibit SR 1 there.
` A. I have it.
` Q. If you could turn to page 6, please.
` A. Is that numbered page 6 or exhibit
`page 6?
` Q. Numbered page 6. Specifically --
`paragraph 17 begins at the bottom of the page that
`I'm referring to.
` A. I found it.
` Q. So, in that paragraph, you refer to
`Atlas for its reference to "surfactants with an
`'HLB opposing that for emulsion being treated.'"
` Do you see that there?
` A. I see it.
` Q. What do you understand that quoted
`
`itself?
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't recall as I sit here. I suspect
`the ICI document that I cited is where I would find
`it, but I would have to review that again.
` MR. LUCCI: CJ, I believe you have his
`original declarations there.
` MR. FAHY: I do.
` MR. LUCCI: If you can hand each of them to
`the Court Reporter, the '469 first if you could.
` MR. FAHY: Sure.
` MR. LUCCI: If you can mark that. And that's
`Hydrite Exhibit 1005, CJ?
` MR. FAHY: Correct.
` MR. LUCCI: And I believe we are up to SR 5.
`That will be Hydrite Exhibit 1009. That's the
`original declaration relating to the '469 patent.
`And if you could mark as SR 6 the original
`declaration relating to the '059 patent.
` (WHEREUPON, certain documents were
` marked SR Exhibit No. 5, original
` declaration of David A. Rockstraw,
` Ph.D., P.E., U.S. Patent No.
`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
`
`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
` 8,841,469, and No. 6, original
` declaration of David A. Rockstraw,
` Ph.D., P.E., U.S. Patent No.
` 8,962,059.)
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. So, Dr. Rockstraw, if you can take a
`look at these to refresh your recollection as to
`whether or not any of the publications that are
`discussed in your declaration were ones in which
`there's reference to the HLB of the emulsion itself
`rather than one of its components.
` MR. FAHY: Objection; form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. On page, numbered page 28 or page 32 of
`110 of my '469 original declaration, I make
`reference to an insert Figure 4 from the ICI
`document that shows a plot of the stability of our
`system as a function of HLB of the emulsifier.
` And so that peak in the center that
`represents the most stable system represents the
`HLB of the emulsifiers in that system.
`BY MR. LUCCI:
` Q. Now, that figure doesn't use the word
`"emulsifiers," plural, does it? It uses the word
`Page 31
`
`Page 32
` Q. Okay. Well, I was actually trying to
`find relevant disclosure in your original
`declarations.
` So, is there any place in your -- before
`when you were referring to page 28 of your original
`declaration from the '469 patent, you mentioned
`Figure 4 and there is a reproduction of Figure 4
`then.
` So, in Figure 4 on page 28 of your
`original declaration, that appears in paragraph 77
`and 78, right, that discussion?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. So, in paragraph 77 and 78,
`you're talking about individual surfactants and
`their relevant HLB values, right?
` A. Relative to your emulsion system, yes.
` Q. Right. And, so, what type of emulsion
`system is being considered there in Figure 4 from
`ICI?
` A. The nature of the system in Figure 4 is
`not defined. It's a generic plot that shows how
`stability varies with HLB.
` Q. Actually, aren't they talking about how
`to form an emulsion of corn oil in Figure 4?
`Page 33
`1
` A. They're talking about how stability of
`2
`an emulsion varies as a function of the HLB of the
`3
`emulsifier that's added to the system.
`4
` Q. Right. So, what they are talking about
`5
`is they are talking about imagine you have an oil
`6
`that has a given HLB value and they're talking
`7
`about how to pick a surfactant that would form an
`8
`emulsion of an oil, right?
`9
` A. I believe if we had the full document
`10
`for ICI, they use that figure in their discussion
`11
`of forming emulsions. But the figure speaks to
`12 much more than just forming the emulsion. It shows
`13
`the conditions under which it's both stable and
`14
`unstable.
`15
` Q. Okay. Going back to the original
`16
`question that led us to refer to your original
`17
`declarations, that was seeking to identify
`18
`discussion that you had in your original
`19
`declarations relating to the HLB of an entire
`20
`system rather than the HLB of a given surfactant.
`21
`You had identified this disclosure in paragraph 77
`22
`and 78. Is there any other disclosure that you
`23
`found in your original declaration of that type?
`24
` A. I don't recall having that discussion in
`9 (Pages 30 to 33)
`Golkow Technologies, Inc. - 1.877.370.DEPS
`
`1
`"emulsifier," singular, right?
`2
` A. On the X axis you see "HLB of
`3
`emulsifiers," plural.
`4
` Q. And in the figure legend it says,
`5
`"Figure 4, how stability of your emulsion is
`6
`affected by chemical type of emulsifier," right?
`7
` A. It is. Though I don't --
`8
` Q. In your discussion -- go ahead.
`9
` A. I don't explicitly cite in ICI where it
`10
`talk