BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trial N0.:
`
`IPR 2015-01653
`
`In re:
`
`US. Patent No. RE/13,106
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Toshiba Sarnsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation
`
`Petitioners:
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., and LG Electronics U .S.A., Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`Jang~H_oon Yoo and Chul-Woo Lee
`
`For: OPTICAL PICKUP COMPATIBLE WITH A DIGITAL VERSATILE DISK
`AND A RECORDABLE COMPACT DISK USING A HOLOGRAPHIC
`RING LENS
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL LEBBY
`
`l, Michael Lebby, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`My name is Michael Lebby.
`
`I reside at 680 Mission St, Apt 24F, San
`
`Francisco, CA 94105 , and I currently work for the University of Southern
`
`A California (USC) and Lightwave Logic (LWLG), and consult for Oculi LLC.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Toshiba Sarnsung Storage Technology Korea
`
`Corporation (“TSST” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`I understand that TSST is the owner of
`
`patents involved in several Inter Pczrtes Reviews (IPRS). This declaration relates to
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE-43,106 (the ‘W6 patent) and the IPR with which it is involved,
`
`which I understand to be IPR20lS—Ol653.
`
`1
`
`-
`
`.
`
`A EXHIBI
`-2:i.0<;’>"’2..
`
`31)’?/‘l§2,"$¢Y.S"”~€3 M53
`
`

`
`3.
`
`I am currently the Director of Corporate Relations at USC, CEO and
`
`CFO of Oculi LLC, and Director at LWLG. My curriculum vitae (CV) is attached
`
`at the rear of this declaration. My educational and professional background is
`
`summarized below.
`
`4.
`
`To summarize my educational and academic background, I attended
`
`the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom (UK), where I earned a
`
`Bachelor's of Engineering (B. Engi), with Honors. Thereafter, I received an MBA
`
`and Ph.D. from the University of Bradford. In 2004, I received a Doctor of
`
`Engineering from the University ofBradford, which is a higher doctorate awarded
`
`on technical contribution to the field.
`
`I received a citation, entitled “Technical
`
`Contributions to Optoelectronics,” in connection Doctor of Engineering degree.
`
`5.
`
`After receiving my B. Eng. degree, I worked as a Researcher at
`
`/\"l”&T Bell Labs in their Photonics Research Dept.
`
`i left A’l“&T in l989 and
`
`became the R&D Manager at Motorola.
`
`leaving Motorola in l 998, I joined
`
`Tl::3 Connectivity where I"
`
`the li)i1‘eotor oil’ Tecl’1r1ology/BD (Fiber Optics).
`
`.1 left
`
`TE Connectivity in l999 to take a Director of Business Deveioprnent position at
`
`Intel Cap.ital.
`
`l was one of’ the oo~t:"o'unders oil’ Intel's _photor1ies div.isio.n in the year
`
`2000.
`
`l leitt lntel to be<;ome a. ifotinder of lgnis Optics, a ventt:re—bael<.ed starbup,
`
`where I served
`
`l3‘res.ident and (7Jl%F1(f) from 200i ~«2003. Froni 2003»20()5, I served
`
`as the Vii’ o‘f’Tl“ech.nology and Business li)evel.oprnent at OCLARO.
`
`in 2005, I
`
`

`
`o
`
`v
`
`Joined the Optoelectronic Industry Development Association (OIDA), where I held
`
`Executive Director, President, and CEO positions. OIDA was acquired by OSA in
`
`2010, and I became the General Manager and CFO at Translucent, Inc., where I
`
`worked until 2013.
`
`In 2013, I became a full Professor of Optoelectrcnics at
`
`Glyndwr University.
`
`I also served as Chair of Optoelectronics at Glyndwr
`
`University. From 2013-2015, I served as President and CEO of OneChip
`
`Photonics Corporation.
`
`I have held my position at Oculi LLC since 2003, and I
`
`have held my positions at USC and LWLG since 2015.
`
`6.
`
`I have received a. number of awards during my professional career.
`
`For example, I was recognized professionally as a Fellow of IEEE (2005) and OSA
`
`(2007) in view of my technical. contributions to the field of optoelectronics.
`
`I
`
`served on the IEEE CPMT Board ofGovernors from 1998-2002.
`
`I was cited by
`
`the USPTO as being among the 75 most prolific inventors in the United States
`
`from 1988» 1997, and I was the most prolific inventor at Motorola in its 70+ year
`
`history,
`
`7.
`
`I have authored or co-authored more than 60 publications, and I am
`
`listed as an inventor or co~inventor on over 450 issued/published patents, including
`
`over 200 issued utility patents issued by the USPTO. My patents cover a wide
`
`variety of areas including, for example, fiber optic communications, devices,
`
`transceivers, VCSELS, VCSEL packaging, passive fiber alignment, low cost
`
`

`
`photonics and electronics manufacturing, design of refractive, diffractive, and
`
`holographic optics for various communications and consumer applications, etc.
`
`8.
`
`My demonstrated commercial technological expertise encompasses a
`
`variety of areas including, for example, fiber optic communications, materials,
`
`packaging and alignment, optoelectronics (LEDS, laser diodes), optical
`
`components, photonics (PICS, OEICS, silicon photonics, polarizers, MEMS, optical
`
`switches, solar cells, gratings, Mux/Demux),semiconductors (CMOS, SOI, SOS),
`
`materials (GaN, lnGaN, GaAs, SiGe, Inl’, SiC, REO, Sapphire), fabrication,
`
`(Silicon, GaAs, Inl’) manufacturing (IILV, Silicon, SiGe), epitaxial growth
`
`(MOCVD, MBE, CVD), and optics/microelectronics packaging/assembly, etc.
`
`9.
`
`i am being compensated for my time at my usual and customary rate.
`
`I have no personal or financial. stake or interest in the outcome of this Inter Partes
`
`Review, or any related action. My compensation in no way depends upon my
`
`testimony or the outcome of this Inter Pczrtes Review, or any related action.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed. and am familiar with at least the following
`
`documents, and any other document mentioned herein:
`the ‘l06 patent (Ex. 1001);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,696,750 to Katayama (Katayama, Ex. 1.002); and the Declaration
`
`of Masud Mansuripur (Ex. 1012). It is my understanding that the ‘I06 patent has .
`
`an alleged effective filing date as early as March 28, 1997.
`
`

`
`My Understanding of the Law Regarding Patent Validity
`
`1 1.
`
`The following is what I have been told about the law regarding
`
`validity of a patent, and it represents my understanding of the same.
`
`It is my
`
`understanding that LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (who 1
`
`understanding are the “Petitioner” in this IPR proceeding) have the burden of
`
`proving invalidity in an IPR proceeding by a preponderance of the evidence. As
`
`explained below, it is my opinion that the challenged claims of the ‘lO6 patent are
`
`not invalid under this standard.
`
`12.
`
`griticipation. It is my understanding that a claim of a patent is
`
`“anticipated” only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
`
`either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference. If even a single
`
`element is missing, the claim is not anticipated.
`
`It is my understanding that a
`
`feature is “inherent” in a reference only if that feature is necessarily present in the
`
`reference - not merely probably or possibly present. Furthermore, it is my
`
`understanding that in order to anticipate, a prior art reference must not only
`
`disclose all elements of the claim, but must also disclose those elements as
`
`arranged as in the claim.
`
`it is my understanding that there are no anticipation
`
`rejections at issue here.
`
`13. Obviousness.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid for
`
`“obviousness” if the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one
`
`

`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of a single prior art
`
`reference or a combination of prior art references.
`
`I understand that a
`
`determination of whether a claimed invention would have been obvious requires
`
`taking into consideration factors that include assessing the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`It is my understanding that the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is determined by considering the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. It is my understanding that a prior
`
`art reference may be considered to teach away from the invention when a person of
`
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be led in a direction divergent
`
`from the path that was taken by the claimed invention; and that the general rule is
`
`that references that teach away cannot serve to create a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`As of 1997, it is my opinion that a person. of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which the ‘I06 patent pertains would likely be a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`engineering including optical and electronics, with two to five years of teaching or
`
`work experience in the relevant field. Of course, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`

`
`might have either more formal education with less experience, or less formal
`
`education with more experience.
`
`Issues Involving the ‘106 Patent
`
`15,‘
`
`It is my understanding that the PTAB (Board), on February 5, 2016
`
`instituted an IPR trial regarding the ‘W6 patent only regarding whether claims 7~
`
`19 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §lO3(a) over the Admitted Prior
`
`Art (APA) and Katayama.
`
`My Claim Interpretations
`
`16.
`
`In the following sections, 1 set forth my understanding of certain claim
`
`terms from claim 7 of the ‘lO6 patent.
`
`“fseleczivel
`
`dz’
`
`iracfz/ae zrstarzdseconci’ Z1‘
`
`wavelength ” (claim. 7)
`
`17.
`
`Claiml7 of the ‘lO6 patent requires a diffractive region to “selectively
`
`diffract the first and second light beams as a function of wavelength.” My
`
`understanding is that this means to “dzffrczct thefirsz and second light beams
`
`according to their respective wavelengths.” Thus, claim 7 requires that both
`
`beams are diffracted by the diffractive region in my view. My interpretation of
`
`claim 7 in this respect is consistent with the specification of the ‘lO6 patent for at
`
`least the following reasons.
`
`

`
`18.
`The specification of the ‘106 patent describes multiple embodiments.
`in some embodiments, one of the light beams is diffracted (e.g., covered by claim
`
`1). In other embodiments, both light beams are diffracted (e.g., covered by claim
`
`7).
`
`19.
`
`For example, Fig. 6 of the specification ofthe ‘l06 patent shows a
`
`650 nm beam having cross members and a 780 nm beam identified with circles.
`
`‘I06 patent at Fig. 6 and col. 6:53-63. The vertical axis of Fig. 6 is transmissive
`
`efficiency and the horizontal axis of Fig. 6 is groove depth of the diffraction
`
`grating.
`
`‘ 106 patent at Fig. 6 and col. 4:18-20. In Fig. 6, both beams are diffracted
`
`a majority of the time (z'.e., at most diffraction grating groove depths, both beams
`
`are diffracted). Both beams are being diffracted in Fi g. 6 at any groove depth
`
`when they are both below 1.0 on the vertical axis. For example, at groove depths
`
`from 3.2 to 3.6 um both beams in Fig. 6 are diffracted. Fig. 6 also illustrates that
`
`the different wavelengths are diffracted to different extents.
`
`i note, however, that
`
`for groove depths where a beam plot is at 1 on the vertical. axis in Fig. 6, there is no
`
`diffraction for that beam plot. Fig. 6 therefore illustrates that for most grating
`
`groove depths there is diffraction ofboth beams. The specification of the ‘l06
`
`patent at other locations also describes both beams being diffracted, with the
`
`amount that each beam is diffracted. being a function of its wavelength. ‘l06
`
`

`
`patent at at 6:20-37, Thus, the specification and claim 7 both describe that both
`
`light beams are diffracted.
`
`“di§Zi'aet”{cZaz’m 72
`
`20. Webster’s Universal College Di.cti‘on.ary (1997), at Ex. 2001, defines
`
`“diffraction” as “modulation of waves in response to an obstacle, as an object, slit,
`
`or grating, in the path of propagation, giving rise in light waves to a banded pattern
`
`or to a spectrum.” I believe that this is how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted “diffraction” in this art as of 1997.
`
`I also believe that one could
`
`not reasonably interpret “di'ffraction” in a manner that would be significantly
`
`broader than this definition. For instance, it is known and understood in the art that
`
`light passing through a typical window on a home or building is not “diffracted.”
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that “diffract” as used in claim 7 of the ‘loo patent
`
`means “modulate waves in response to an Obstacle, as an object, Slit, or grating, in
`
`zhepat/1 Qfpropagation, giving rise in light waves to a banded pattern or to a
`
`spectrum.”
`
`21.
`
`This definition of “diffract” is consistent with both the specification
`
`of the ‘lO6 patent and the ordinary“ meaning of diffract/diffractiori as of 1997.
`
`Figs. 5A—5B and 7 of the ‘lO6 patent illustrate diffractive gratings including
`
`grooves that would necessarily cause modulation of both wavelengths giving rise
`
`

`
`to waves in a banded pattern or spectrum according to Fig. 6.
`
`‘106 patent at Figs.
`
`5A~5B, 6, 7, and from col. 5:51 to col. 7:27.
`
`22.
`
`Diffraction arises when a wavefront is obstructed as in the case where
`
`the media interface is small enough to be close to the wavelength of the wavefront.
`
`In this situation, the wavefront needs to circumvent the obstacle and forms fringe
`
`patterns. The fringe patterns are essential regions of uniform geometrical shadow
`
`that occur around the obstacle. This phenomenon is similar to interference, as both
`
`are the product of the superposition of several wavelets. A wavelet originates as
`
`two or more wavefronts overlap, as in the ripples of‘ waves on a pond when a stone
`
`is thrown in. A simple technique to analyze diffraction is based on the Huygens
`
`Fresnel principle where every point on a wavefront serves as source of spherical
`
`secondary wavelets of the same frequency as the primary wave. The optical field
`
`at any point beyond an obstruction is the superposition of all such wavelets
`
`reaching that point. Basic scientific theory confirms the construction of
`
`d.iffract/diffiraction. I discuss above.
`
`APA and Katayama do not render obvious claim 7.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, claim 7 of the ‘lO6 patent is patentable over Katayama
`
`(Ex. lO02) and the alleged Admitted Prior Art (APA) for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`It is my understanding that the APA is made up of only Figs. l~2 of the
`
`‘ 106 patent and the specification of the ‘lO6 patent from col. 1:36 to col. 3:25.
`
`ll)
`
`

`
`24.
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘ 106' patent requires a diffractive region to “selectively
`
`diffract the first and second light beams as a function of wavelength.” As
`
`explained above, this phrase should be construed to mean “dzffract thefirst and
`
`second light beams according to their respective wavelengths.” Therefore, claim 7
`
`requires that _l_)_o_t_l1 beams are diffracted by the diffractive region.
`
`25.
`
`The APA fails to disclose this claimed subject matter. There is
`
`nothing in Figs.
`
`.l.~2 of the ‘ 106 patent, or the specification ofthe ‘106 patent from
`
`col. 1:36 to col. 3:25, disclosing or suggesting a diffractive region that diffracts the
`
`first and second light beams according to their respective wavelengths. Lens 17 of
`
`the APA does not do this, and variable aperture element 16 in the APA does not do
`
`this. To the contrary, the APA states that variable aperture 16 transmits both
`
`beams in region l, and transmits the 635 nm beam and totally reflects the 780
`
`beam at region 2.
`
`‘106 patent at col. 2:56~67.
`
`26. Apparently realizing this deficiency with the APA, petitioner relies on
`
`Figs. 29—3l o:t‘Katayama and contends that it would have been obvious to have
`
`used Katayama’s aperture limiting element 2801 on an objective lens in the APA.
`
`See Petiti.on at 31; and Ex. 1012 at {Hi 97-98. It is my understanding that Petitioner
`
`relies on .Katayama’s statement at col. 18:43-44, which states that “it is possible to
`
`form the aperture limiting element 2801 directly on the object lens 6.” Id.
`
`11
`
`

`
`27. However, if Katayama’s element 2801 were provided on an objective
`
`lens in the APA, claim 7 still would n__o_t be met. If Katayama’s element 2801 were
`
`provided on an objective lens in the APA, element 2801 would not diffract both
`
`b_<;_aMm_s as called for in claim 7. Katayama initially explains that “only one” beam
`
`is adjusted. Katayama at col. l:S4~59. Referring to Figs. 28—30, Katayama
`
`explains that the grating 3002 of element 280l “completely passes the 635 nm
`
`wavelength light therethrough, while the grating 3002 almost completely diffracts
`
`the 785 nm wavelength light thereby.” Katayama at col. 17: l2~27. See also
`
`Katayama at l.6:54~6O regarding reflection. Thus, the.635 nm beam is not
`
`diffracted in Katayama, because it “completely passes” through the grating.
`
`Element 2801. in Kayama diffracts one beam, but completely passes the other
`
`beam. Accordingly, even if Katayama’e element 2801 were provided on an
`
`objective lens from the APA, only one of the two beams would be diffracted, and
`
`claim 7 therefore would not be met.
`
`28. Katayama specifies that in the fifth embodiment beginning with
`
`Figure 29 and continuing to Figure 31 (column 16:37 to l8:42),there are two
`
`beams of light for the optical head. The first beam has a wavelength of 635 nm
`
`and the second beam has a wavelength of 785 nm. Essentially the same
`
`wavelength beams are described in the APA (635 nm and 780 nm). With
`
`particular attention to Figure 29B (which is a cross~section of Figure 29A along
`
`12
`
`

`
`axis B~B), there are three layers that compose diameter D1, and only one layer that
`
`composes D2. Katayama clearly states at col. 16:40 that layer 2901 is a glass
`
`substrate. Katayama also states that the glass substrate forms a mechanical
`
`platform where interference layer 2902 and phase compensation layer 2903 are
`
`deposited.
`
`In the region D2 of Figure 29B of Katayama, any light passing through
`
`the opening in 2904 will only “see” and travel through a glass substrate. This fact
`
`is supported at col. 16:5 8~6l of Katayama, which states that inside the aperture
`
`2904, 17.6., the area D2, “both the 635 nm wavelength light and the 785 nm
`
`wavelength light completely pass through the aperture limiting element 2801.”
`
`Therefore, light be it 635nm or 785nm will only see a glass layer which acts as a
`
`mechanical platform. The 635 nm beam is never diffracted. It is not known what
`
`the refractive index of the glass is, but it wil.1 be greater than the refractive index of
`
`air (which equals 1). This means that light entering the gla.ss window defined by
`
`area D2 inside the aperture 2904 will only be refracted (i.e., not diffracted). The
`
`light will not see or meet any modulated obstacles and therefore will not suffer any
`
`diffraction properties as it completely passes through this layer. A simple
`
`refraction oflight in this example is similar to light entering a swimming pool
`
`where the refractive index of water is also greater than 1. In this case the light will
`
`not diffract, but will refract as it enters the water and will be directed in a path
`
`different from its origination (via Snell’s law). Using this as an example for
`
`13
`
`

`
`Katayama, the light entering the region D2 inside the aperture 2904 at Wavelengths
`
`635 nm and 785 nm will be simply refracted by the glass layer. The definition of
`
`“completely pass” as specified by Katayama at col. 16:55-56, 16:60-61, and 17:20-
`
`2l in the context ofoptics is that the light is not perturbed in any way, and
`
`maintains its structure through the simple glass layer, much the same as light
`
`passes through a window at home.
`
`In this case the light is not diffracted, but
`
`simply refracted. Refracted light completely passes through windows at home, and
`
`completely passes through the glass layer in Figure 29B, region D2 inside the
`
`aperture 2904. Thus, only one of the two beams is diffracted by element 2801 in
`
`Katayarna (and in the alleged APA/Katayama cornbi.nation). Katayama at 17:12-
`27. The 635 nm beam is never diffracted by an objective lens in either Katayama
`or in the alleged APA/Katayama combination.
`
`29.
`
`Accordingly, the element 2801 in Kayarna diffracts only one beam,
`
`and completely passes the other. Katayama at 17:19-30. Thus, even if the element
`
`2801 of Katayama were provided on an objective lens in the APA (which I do not
`
`1 agree would have been obvious in any event), claim 7 still would not be met
`
`because only one of the two beams would be diffracted. There is no disclosure or
`
`suggestion in either the APA or Katayama of “a diffractive region surrounding said
`
`inner region and comprising an optical property optimized so as to selectively
`
`diffract the first and second light beams as a function of wavelength so as to
`
`14
`
`

`
`change a numerical aperture of the objective lens” as required by claim 7. The 635
`
`nm beam is not diffracted,
`
`30;
`
`Also, there is no logical reason to have modified the APA or
`
`Katayama (or the alleged combination of APA/Katayarna) to have met claim 7 in
`
`these respects. There is simply no logical reason to have modified the APA,
`
`Katayama, or the alleged APA/Katayama combination to diffract both beams in
`
`order to change a numerical aperture of an objective lens, Instead, Katayama
`
`teaches away from this because Katayama teaches that the 635 nm beam is
`
`completely passed and thus is not to be diffracted.
`
`31.
`
`I also note that claim. 13 o'i’tb.e ‘I06 patent requires that “the
`
`diffractive region is optimized to selectively diflracz: rhefirst and second light
`
`beams such t/car the numerical aperture ofrhe olajective lens is greater‘/or the
`
`second optical recordirzg medium thcmfor thefirst optical recording medium.”
`
`The cited art fails to disclose or suggest this claimed subject matter, either alone or
`
`in the alleged combination, for the reasons I explained above.
`
`MISCELLANEOU$
`
`32.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board of the United States Patent and Tradernark Office.
`
`I also recognize that I
`
`15
`
`

`
`may be subject to cross examination in the proceeding and that cross examination
`
`will take place within the United States. If cross examination is required of me, I
`
`will appear for cross examination within the United States during the time allotted.
`
`for cross examination.
`
`33.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond
`
`to any new arguments that petitioner may raise and take into account new
`
`i.nt’ormation as it becomes available to me.
`
`34.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`'
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willfiil false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 100l of Titie 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: May 5, 2016
`
` Mi
`
`
`
`‘* «WisAid;
`
`T.
`
`I Eng.
`
`

`
`EDUCATION:
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Michael Lebby CV/resume
`
`Michael Lebby
`
`2004, Doctor of Engineering
`University of Bradford, United Kingdom
`Citation, "Technical Contributions to Optoelectronics”
`(NB: This is a higher doctorate awarded on technical contribution to thefield)
`
`1987, Ph.D.
`
`University of Bradford, United Kingdom
`
`Thesis, ”Characterization and Fabrication of the HFET and BICFET”
`
`1985, MBA
`
`University of Bradford, United Kingdom
`
`Thesis, "Small Business Planning for a $tart—up”
`
`1984, Bachelors (B. Eng -— Honors)
`University of Bradford, United Kingdom
`Thesis, ”Computer Aided Testing of Semiconductor Devices”
`
`COMPELLING VALUE:
`
`Patents/inteliectual Property
`
`e
`
`W
`
`W
`
`e
`
`9
`
`Experience: 4 triais {westimony on capitol hiii and +2 completed trial preps);
`“lflwitéfi depositions; ‘“4i~5 depositions as observer; "2080 expert reports; "4 EPR
`expert reports; "18 lP litigation projects
`
`Creative innovator/inventor with over 450 utility patents (>200 utility & primary
`with USPTO)
`
`Highly experienced with intellectual property processes: prosecution, invalidity,
`im“ringement, claim construction, deposition, triai {ETC and District Court), and
`patent DD evaluation
`
`Expert witness for a wide portfolio of technological subjects at district and
`federal court circuit level
`
`Dr. Lebby has been cited by the LJSPTO to be in the most prolific 75 inventors in
`the country (USA) from 1988~~l997.
`
`Michael Lebby, B.Eng (Hons), MBA, PhD, D.Eng, Fellow IEEE, Fellow OSA, C.Eng
`580 Mission St, Apt 24F, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA; mobile +1 717 839 7078; drmlebby@gmail.com
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`

`
`Business
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Michael Lebby CV/resume
`
`Exemplary patent invention at Motorola and in 1998 was it 1 prolific inventor in
`iv’lotoro¥a’s ?Oyr+ history (fibre optic communications
`devices, transceivers,
`V(ZSELs, VCSEL pacl<aging, passive fiber aiignrnent, low cost manufacturing).
`Cowinventor of the worlds first oxide VCSEL (Patent #5,359,618) -~ a VCSEL diode
`laser that has subsequently sold many 1OCvM’s into applications such as optical
`guidance {computer mice,
`track balis) and optical communications iopticai
`interconnect}.
`
`Internationally recognized business leader in photonics manufacturing
`Entrepreneur with two venture backed start—ups (ignis Optics ~ Siiicon Valley, 8:
`OneChip Photonics M Ottawa, Canada).
`
`lntrapreneur for mu|ti—national corporations (Motorola, Intel, Tyco, etc.) with
`many partnerships, strategic plans, roadmaps, P&L, and team leadership.
`Extremeiy innovative in solving problems and creating solutions; finding
`‘diamoncls~in«the--rough’ both on a technical level and a commercial levei.
`
`Natural leader: attracts 15‘ class personnel, and retains them.
`
`Goal and milestone orientated, both fiscally and technologically.
`Proven responsibiiity of budgets, sates, marketing, engineering, and operations.
`
`Networking & Corporate Relations
`8
`
`Director of Corporate and Foundation Reiations: Focusing on matching making
`between technology companies and academic faculty (engineering) with a
`heavy technical perspective (new to this type of role).
`
`Executive Director/CEO OlDA - Nonprofit optoelectronics trade association to
`promote industry issues/voice and build membership.
`
`Internationally recognized with 10+ Bot), BOD observer positions of public and
`private companies.
`
`Corporate investor/VC: investment in a number of photonic startyups as part of
`the lntel Capital Optoelectronics team.
`Excellent communication/media skills with over 170 media achievements such
`
`as: Keynotes, talks, papers, reports, talks, panel sessions, courses, videos,
`weioinars etc.
`
`Excellent communicator to a variety of audiences: Pubiic speaking experience
`includes: trials, keynotes, lectures, workshops, invited speeches, courts, high
`schools, colleges, universities, local chapters, domestic gvts, foreign gvts, and
`depositions ~ inciucling Capitol Hili on behaii oi the optoelectronics industry.
`First class interpersonal skills both domestically and internationally.
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Michael Lebby, B.Eng (Hons), MBA, PhD, D.Eng, Fellow IEEE, Fellow OSA, C.Eng
`680 Mission St, Apt 24F, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA; mobile +1 717 839 7078; clrmlebby@gmail.com
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL Michael Lebby CV/resume
`
`Technical
`
`0 Demonstrated broad technological semiconductor/opto experience
`0
`Ability to both zoom into technical detail (as CTO) as well as see the big picture
`(as CEO/BOD)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Full professor and chair of optoelectronics at Glyndwr University, Wales, UK
`(with part-time responsibilities to assist and guide new programs)
`Fellowsgrade with IEEE and OSA
`
`9
`
`Board experience and maturity in many aspects oi‘ optical communications that
`inciude industrial research, development, packaging, and manufacturing
`0 Demonstrated commercial technological expertise; especially in fibre optic
`communications, materials, packaging and alignment, optoelectronics (LEDS,
`laser diodes}, opticai components, photonics (PiCs, OElCs, silicon photonics,
`polarizers, MEMS, optical switches, solar cells, gratings, i\/lux/Demux),
`semiconductors (Ci\/lOS, SC)l, SoS), materials {GaN, lnGaN, GaAs, SiGe, lnP, SiC,
`REC), Sapphire), fabrication, (Silicon, C:iaAs, lnP) manufacturing (lll~V, Silicon,
`SiGe), epitaxial growth (MOCVD, MBE, CVD), and optics/microelectronics
`packagirig/assembiy.
`A
`
`9
`
`Experienced expert witness for a wide portfolio of technoiogicai subjects that
`include a variety of optoelectronic/optic and eiectronic materials, siiicon iCs,
`low cost plastic LED and laser diode packaging, VCSELS, Barcode scanners, Diode
`
`lasers, CD, DVD, and BluRay optical read/write systems, compound
`semiconductor epitaxy, electronic components, systems, integrated circuits,
`optical lenses, optical components (Mux, LCD switches, lasers, filters, etc),
`opticai networks (ROADMS, routers), and optical characterization, product
`breakdowns with Bolvi anaiysis, and testing.
`
`Commitment
`
`Other
`
`0
`
`'9
`
`Passionate about photonics: academic, industrial, and technological,
`governmental issues
`
`lnternationaliy recognized for optics, lens design, and innovative frame design
`for eyeglasses (member of the London Guild of Spectacle Makers, and Cosmos
`Club in Washington DC). Extensive knowledge in antique spectacles and
`eyeglass optics,
`
`EXVER? §fVi”i“NE$S E){i3iERitZNCE:
`
`1) Decemlder 6, 2010
`
`EP Case No. 11—€ZV-3235 iitiviwi US District Court
`
`Michael Lebby, B.Eng (Hons), MBA, PhD, D.Eng, Fellow IEEE, Fellow OSA, C.Eng
`680 Mission St, Apt 24F, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA; mobile +1 717 839 7078; clrmlebby@gmail.com
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL Michael Lebby CV/resume
`
`Ziptronix, inc. v.e Omnivision Technologies,
`inc., Taiwan Semiconcsluctor
`i\/lanufacttiring Company Ltr:;l.,
`and TSMC North America Corp.
`Role of expert witness for plaintiff.
`CMOS based image sensor
`rriaterlalsg,
`dovicesi,
`optics,
`and
`products)
`
`2) March 26;, 2009
`
`Testimo_;n;3;;m___j_j4§>;;¢€:hine Economic e__r3§_iM,§gcurity_Wrj_§viowMggmmission or;
`§;ti;e_t.;<:ir2t,t.9_@.i%.t,rle;r:.i,tl§mi_ii.d.i.:Stat; US‘ Congresr, Capitol Hill
`
`Written statement on the status of the USA optoeiectronics industry
`with aurai cross~examination by the corrzmittee {deposition/triei
`experience).
`
`3) Dersomber 10, 2010
`SP Case 5:10-cv~€}56i?-Jw and é:2¥.2—<;v-G{33,<‘3é~i.£¥;> US .€)f:;i'rict Court
`
`Optical Communication Products inc vs Finisar Inc.
`
`Roie of invalidity expert on contested patents for plaintiff that related to
`VCSEl..s and associated electronic circuitry.
`
`Ii) Septernber 8, 203.1
`
`1? Cape lnv No. 337w“i’A-7§8 /i“Iil'¢f?!"fl(7t'iOi‘ii7/ Trade Cornrriission (/TC)
`Representing Covington
`and Burling
`V» attorney for
`respondent
`(Samsung).
`
`”ln the matter of certain iight emitting diodes (LEDs) and products
`containing same.”
`'
`
`Role of expert witness for respondent with depmition (X2) and trial
`experience.
`Key witness.
`LED rnateriais, optics, lenses, devices, and
`packzigras.
`
`5) July 29, 2011
`)3? Case $:l1~CV-39$ US District Court“
`
`vs Alcatelwtucent USA inc, Ciona
`(plaintiff)
`LLC
`Cheetah Omni
`Communications
`inc,
`Fujitsu
`Network
`Ciena
`Corporation,
`Communications inc, Tellabs inc, Telllabs Operations inc, Telllabs North
`
`America inc, Nokia Siemens l’\ietwori<s US LLC, Futerwei Teclmoiogies
`inc‘ Role oi‘ expert witness for plaintiff with deposition {X3} experience.
`Optical communictation materials, devices, modules,
`systc-rns, and
`networks‘ Special emphasis on WSS {wavelerigth selective switches),
`optical awitohing, optics, with LCOS, MEMS, and RGADMS.
`
`233) December 23, 2011,
`l?‘ C356 2:1i«CV~«15525~PDB~i°1fi§(M US District Court
`
`Michael Lebby, B.Eng (Hons), MBA, PhD, D.Eng, Fellow IEEE, Fellow OSA, C.Eng
`680 Mission St, Apt 24F, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA; mobile +1 717 839 7078; drmlebby@gmail.com
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL Michael Lebby CV/resume
`
`LLC (defendant) vs Finisar Corporation (plaintiff).
`Cheetah Ornni
`Roie of expert witness for defendant with deposition experience.
`Optical comrnunication devices, modules, connectors and systems.
`
`3’) Docernber 21, 2012
`
`ifiggse inv i}i;g=§_§?~TA~86;g"/nternotionoi Trade Cornmission (/TC)
`Avago vs Mellanox, li'~"tronics, FCE (respondents).
`Role of expert witness for respondent with depocition (X3) and trial
`experience. Key witness‘ High speed silicon drivers for VCSEL. based
`circuits, «::onnectors, modules, and systenis. LED and LED drivers
`rcviewrzdr
`
`8) Octooor 36‘, 2014
`Ii?’ Coco No. 1:1.@~CV~fi§5?;~3§R US District Court
`
`Cognex (defendant) vs Microscan Corporation (plaintiff).
`Role of expert witness for plaintiff with deposition, d’e,oo5ition observer,
`and trim‘ expmience. Barcooie scanning devices that incitided LEDS and
`
`irnagra seanssors for laser rnaridngr Microscan won the case (May 201.5)
`with darnagrzs, partly due to Lrzhbyfirs tostimony over Zdays.
`
`9) ianuary 23, 2013
`iii Case Env No. £“>:1t}—CV~02853~»E3D US District Court
`
`Avago vs Melianox, (respondent).
`
`Role of expert witness for respondent (deposition observer (X3), and
`dcporftiooi. High speed siiicon drivers
`for VCS