PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _________________________
`
` COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
` Patent Owner
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01776
`
` Patent No. 7,582,621
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01780
`
` Patent No. 7,767,657
`
` Case No. IPR2015-01785
`
` Patent No. 7,767,657
`
`
`
` Deposition of PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D.
`
` Washington, D.C.
`
` Thursday, July 21, 2016
`
` 8:36 a.m.
`
` Volume 1
`
`
`
`Job No. MP-091088
`Pages 1 - 205
`Reported by: Karen Young
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 2
`
` Deposition of PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D., held
`
`at the offices of:
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
` 850 Tenth Street, Northwest
`
` Washington, D.C. 20001
`
` (202) 662-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Karen Young,
`
`Notary Public of the District of Columbia.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` RYAN JAMES FLETCHER, PH.D., ESQUIRE
`
` MERCHANT & GOULD
`
` 1801 California Street
`
` Suite 3300
`
` Denver, Colorado 80202-2654
`
` rfletcher@merchantgould.com
`
` (303) 357-1670
`
`
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` PAUL J. BERMAN, ESQUIRE
`
` EVAN KRYGOWSKI, PH.D., ESQUIRE
`
` ANDREA REISTER, ESQUIRE (where noted)
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
` One CityCenter
`
` 850 Tenth Street, Northwest
`
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
`
` ekrygowski@cov.com
`
` pberman@cov.com
`
` (202) 662-6000
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D. PAGE
`
` By Dr. Fletcher............................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Exhibit 1 Notice of Deposition,
` IPR2015-01776.............................. 18
`
`Exhibit 2 Notice of Deposition,
` IPR2015-01780.............................. 19
`
`Exhibit 3 Notice of Deposition,
` IPR2015-01785.............................. 20
`
`Exhibit 2034-1 Declaration of Paul J. Reider,
` Ph.D., IPR2015-01776....................... 28
`
`Exhibit 2034-2 Declaration of Paul J. Reider,
` Ph.D., IPR2015-01780....................... 29
`
`Exhibit 2034-3 Declaration of Paul J. Reider,
` Ph.D., IPR2015--1785....................... 29
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 20 Article by Segal et al............ 146
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,582,621......... 73
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,767,657......... 73
`
`Exhibit 1002 International Patent
` Application, WO 95/33754.................... 127
`
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent Application
` Publication US 2002/0165121 A1.............. 131
`
`Exhibit 1004 International Patent
` Application, WO 03/009689................... 140
`
`Exhibit 2005 Article by Baldock et al.......... 192
`
`Exhibit 2007 Article by Lefkovits and Topol.... 194
`
`Exhibit 2008 Article by Grassberger,
` Turnowsky and Hildebrandt................... 197
`
`Exhibit 2030 Curriculum Vitae.................. 51
`
`Exhibit 2043 EPA Preliminary Investigation of
` Effects on the Environment of Boron,
` Indium Nickel, Selenium, Tin, Vanadium and
` their Compounds............................. 180
`
`Exhibit 2052 Paper by Soloway, Whitman and
` Messer, 11/20/59............................ 168
`
`Exhibit 2129 Editorial, "Proof of the Pudding". 165
`
`Exhibit 2130 Article by Soloway, Wright and
` Messer...................................... 169
`
`Exhibit 2131 Article by Soloway, Whitman and
` Messer, 10/11/61............................ 178
`
`Exhibit 2133 Article by Dominguez et al........ 182
`
`Exhibit 2134 Article by Fevig et al............ 185
`
`Exhibit 2135 Sax's Dangerous Properties of
` Industrial Materials, excerpt............... 187
`Exhibit 2136 Article by Vyakaranam et al....... 189
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D.,
`
` having been duly sworn, was examined as follows:
`
` - - -
`
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. How are you today?
`
` A. Well, thank you. Yourself?
`
` Q. Good, thank you. So just let me formally
`
`reintroduce myself. So I'm Ryan Fletcher, counsel for
`
`petitioners in the underlying proceedings, and you are
`
`aware that your testimony today is actually addressing
`
`three different proceedings before the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office?
`
` A. I am.
`
` Q. Thank you. Have you had your deposition
`
`taken before?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. When was the last time?
`
` A. Probably 18 months ago.
`
` Q. Okay. So let me just touch base then on a
`
`couple of the procedural issues with a deposition.
`
`Sounds like you're going to be pretty familiar with
`
`most of them. First and foremost, just let me finish
`
`my question before you answer. The goal of the
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`deposition is a clear record, and not -- and I don't
`
`want there to be any confusion. I don't think you
`
`want confusion. I don't want any confusion. So let
`
`me finish my questions before you answer and then
`
`please answer.
`
` If you don't understand anything I say, if
`
`it's ambiguous to you, if I'm talking too softly,
`
`which I'm prone to do, please let me know and we'll
`
`work with each other to clarify. If you need to take
`
`a break, just let me know. Happy to take a break at
`
`any time. My only request is that we don't take a
`
`break when a question's pending. Otherwise, you have
`
`to go to the bathroom, need something to drink, by all
`
`means let me know and we'll take a break. I think
`
`we'll probably end up breaking naturally every hour,
`
`hour and a half just depending on the flow of the
`
`deposition or when your counsel wants a break as well.
`
`Can you state and spell your full name for the record?
`
` A. I can.
`
` Q. Would you please?
`
` A. Yes, my name is Paul Joseph Reider.
`
`Spelling of last name is R-E-I-D as in David, E-R.
`
` Q. And what's your current address?
`
` A. My current address is 377 Walnut Lane,
`
`W-A-L-N-U-T, Lane, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. And then one other important rule for IPR
`
`depositions, which is going to be a little bit
`
`different than probably your experiences with
`
`depositions in District Court, and that is, when we do
`
`take a break, whether it's for lunch or at the end of
`
`the evening, as long as my examination's still open,
`
`the IPR rules prohibit you from corresponding with
`
`your counsel about the substance of your testimony, so
`
`I would just ask that you refrain from doing that. If
`
`you do have a question about the substance of your
`
`testimony or you want to ask your counsel about
`
`something that's occurring during the deposition, I
`
`would just ask that you please include me in the
`
`conversation, okay?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. BERMAN: Unless of course the matter
`
`involves whether some subject matter is confidential.
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. So you mentioned you had your deposition
`
`taken before, and you said the last time you had your
`
`deposition taken was 18 months ago. Can you tell me
`
`about that matter?
`
` A. I can.
`
` Q. Please do.
`
` A. I believe the timing is accurate. It would
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`have been a deposition taken in Princeton, New Jersey
`
`for a Canadian case involving intellectual property of
`
`a -- an HIV protease inhibitor for the treatment of
`
`AIDS.
`
` Q. And were you testifying on behalf of the
`
`plaintiffs or the defendants in that matter?
`
` A. On behalf of the innovator company, which
`
`would be the plaintiffs.
`
` Q. And did your opinions relate to whether the
`
`intellectual property was valid?
`
` A. In this case they related to whether the
`
`intellectual property was infringed.
`
` Q. So no opinions on validity.
`
` A. For that deposition, I don't recall opinions
`
`on validity.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever given a deposition
`
`relating to intellectual property in another case?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. How many times? Let me -- let me rephrase
`
`the question. How many different cases?
`
` A. The HIV drug involved a number of different
`
`venues. If we view that as one case, as an expert,
`
`I've given testimony or depositions in a total of
`
`three cases.
`
` Q. So two additional cases on top of the HIV
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`protease case?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Okay. So sounds like you gave multiple
`
`depositions in the HIV protease case?
`
` A. That would be correct.
`
` Q. And your testimony in the HIV protease case
`
`was always for the plaintiffs, and always
`
`concerning -- well, I'll let you answer that first.
`
`Always for the plaintiffs?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And always concerning infringement.
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. What was the substance of the other
`
`testimony?
`
` A. The other testimony --
`
` Q. In the HIV case, yes.
`
` A. To nonobviousness.
`
` Q. So then you did give testimony in the HIV
`
`protease case on the topic of validity.
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. And was the patent held valid?
`
` A. It was.
`
` Q. Okay. So you mentioned two other cases
`
`other than the HIV protease case.
`
` A. That's correct.
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Q. Can you give me -- let's take the first
`
`case. Did you testify on behalf of the plaintiffs or
`
`defendants in that case?
`
` A. The plaintiffs.
`
` Q. As to what topic?
`
` A. Canadian section 8 hearing with regard to
`
`the value -- economic value of lost sales.
`
` Q. So you did not offer any opinions on the
`
`validity or invalidity of any patent in that case.
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Okay. So it sounds like there was a third
`
`case?
`
` A. There was.
`
` Q. Did you offer opinions on validity in that
`
`case?
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. Have you ever testified at trial?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. And your testimony at trial was related to
`
`the three cases we've already discussed?
`
` A. It was.
`
` Q. Did you testify any other times at trial
`
`where you did not provide a deposition prior to trial?
`
` MR. BERMAN: Can I have the question again
`
`please?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` - - -
`
` THE REPORTER: Question: "Did you testify
`
`any other times at trial where you did not provide a
`
`deposition prior to trial?"
`
` - - -
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So you've never testified at trial on behalf
`
`of a defendant in a patent litigation case?
`
` A. Could you repeat the question please?
`
` Q. So you've never testified at trial on behalf
`
`of a defendant in a patent litigation case?
`
` A. That's incorrect.
`
` Q. Was that one of the three cases we've just
`
`discussed?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And which case was that?
`
` A. The cases -- consolidated case of Teva,
`
`Mylan, Lupin in New Jersey District Federal Court
`
`versus Janssen Pharmaceuticals on multiple patents
`
`with regard to the HIV protease inhibitor darunavir.
`
` Q. So I apologize. I'm a little confused. I
`
`thought in the HIV protease case, you just testified
`
`that you testified on behalf of plaintiffs as to
`
`validity and infringement.
`
` A. I did. Did I misunderstand your question?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Did you ask if -- I'm sorry, please repeat the
`
`question.
`
` Q. Have you ever testified -- have you ever
`
`offered opinions at trial relating to the invalidity
`
`of a patent?
`
` A. The invalidity.
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
`
` MR. BERMAN: Counsel, let me interpose an
`
`objection that this calls for a legal conclusion, and
`
`if you give me permission, I will explain the nature
`
`of my objection.
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. Your objection's noted. You can answer the
`
`question.
`
` A. I have not testified at trial with regard to
`
`my opinions on the patent being invalid.
`
` Q. But you have offered opinions on behalf of a
`
`party as to --
`
` A. I need to ask -- this is a confidential
`
`question. This is a matter that's currently ongoing
`
`--
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
`
` A. -- that I'm uncomfortable answering your
`
`question because I have not yet provided a
`
`declaration, I have not yet been deposed, and I have
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`not yet appeared at trial, but to make matters a
`
`little bit clearer for you, I am currently involved
`
`expressing opinions on behalf of -- in an antitrust
`
`case challenging the validity of a patent on behalf of
`
`the people challenging the patent.
`
` Q. Are any of your opinions in that case
`
`public?
`
` A. Not yet.
`
` Q. Okay, thank you.
`
` A. Sorry. You can understand why it was hard
`
`to answer.
`
` Q. So maybe you can help me. Maybe I'm
`
`misremembering. I remember reading the trial
`
`transcript, which I believe was your trial transcript,
`
`where you were offering opinions on behalf of a
`
`defendant as to a patent that was being asserted
`
`against that defendant.
`
` A. Could you please remind me of the case?
`
` Q. Yeah, I'll have to check on the break.
`
`Thanks. So we established you've offered deposition
`
`testimony related to intellectual property in three
`
`cases?
`
` A. I believe that's accurate.
`
` Q. Okay, and you've offered trial testimony in
`
`one of those three cases?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. In the U.S., trial testimony that I've done
`
`has occurred in court. The Canadian system makes it
`
`difficult for me to understand the difference between
`
`deposition and trial testimony and when it's used, so
`
`I -- with the caveat that the Canadian proceedings,
`
`which was very much similar to what we are doing
`
`today, could be construed as trial testimony.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever provided a declaration
`
`on behalf of a defendant in a patent case where you
`
`were not deposed?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How many times, or how many different
`
`instances?
`
` A. I believe once.
`
` Q. Okay. Can you explain to me the facts
`
`surrounding that?
`
` A. I can.
`
` Q. When was it?
`
` A. Approximately three years ago.
`
` Q. And what was the context of the setting?
`
` A. The validity of a composition of matter
`
`patent for an HIV drug in which the challengers
`
`questioned the validity of the patent.
`
` Q. And you were offering a declaration on -- in
`
`support of the challengers or of the patent holder?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. In support of the innovator company patent
`
`holder.
`
` Q. Okay. And you were never deposed and you
`
`never offered any testimony at trial.
`
` A. The challengers stipulated validity of the
`
`patent.
`
` Q. Okay. So it was just infringement.
`
` A. The trial ended up being limited to
`
`infringement.
`
` Q. Okay, thanks. Have you ever participated in
`
`an IPR before? And by IPR, do you understand what I
`
`mean by that?
`
` A. I understand. I need clarification when you
`
`ask about participation.
`
` Q. Have you ever consulted with any party that
`
`was involved in an inter partes proceeding?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you consulted on behalf of the
`
`petitioner?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. You've only consulted on behalf of the
`
`patent owner.
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Have you ever been involved in -- let me
`
`back up. Did you offer a declaration in that matter?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. I did not.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever been involved in any
`
`other Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding?
`
` A. I'm not sure if that's two questions. Would
`
`you please repeat it?
`
` Q. Have you ever been involved in any other
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding? Do you
`
`understand what I mean by Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board proceeding?
`
` A. If it's an IPR --
`
` Q. Uh-huh.
`
` A. -- separate from --
`
` Q. Reexamination. Inter partes reexamination
`
`or ex parte reexamination.
`
` A. So with the caveat if you're asking have I
`
`participated as an expert, the answer is not to my
`
`recollection.
`
` Q. You've participated as an inventor?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. How else have you participated?
`
` A. As a fact witness.
`
` Q. Okay. Have any of -- have any of your
`
`previous opinions been excluded by the court?
`
` A. Not to my knowledge.
`
` DR. FLETCHER: So directed to the -- direct
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`to the court reporter, if we previously used an
`
`exhibit in a deposition and it's already marked, let's
`
`keep that exhibit number the same unless counsel
`
`objects. If it's been a previously served or filed
`
`exhibit, so it has an exhibit number on it, I'd like
`
`to keep that the same. If we run into any issues with
`
`overlapping exhibit numbers between inter partes
`
`proceedings, then we'll work at the time to clarify
`
`that. In this instance I'd like to introduce just the
`
`notice of deposition to Dr. Reider in the 1776
`
`petition.
`
` - - -
`
` (Deposition Exhibit Number 1 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` - - -
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. And while the court reporter's marking
`
`exhibits for us, do you know what -- when I'm
`
`referring to the 1776 petition, do you understand that
`
`I'm referring to Case Number IPR2015-01776?
`
` A. This is on the '621 patent?
`
` Q. Yes.
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. So -- and by '621 patent, you mean
`
`patent number 7,5 -- patent number 7,582,621?
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. I believe that's correct.
`
` Q. So we can agree today that if I call it the
`
`'621 patent or you call it the '621 patent, we're
`
`referring to United States patent number 7,582,621?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay, and could we also agree today that if
`
`I use the term the 1776 petition, that we'll be
`
`referring to the petition that relates to the '621
`
`patent?
`
` A. That would be preferable. Thank you.
`
` DR. FLETCHER: Are you done marking this?
`
`Here you go. I'd like to introduce Exhibit Number 2
`
`for the Reider deposition, should be the notice of
`
`deposition for Case Number IPR2015-01780 relating to
`
`patent number 7,767,657.
`
` - - -
`
` (Deposition Exhibit Number 2 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` - - -
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. And Dr. Reider, the same shorthand, we can
`
`agree that the same shorthand for that petition can
`
`apply, so if I use the term 1780 petition, I'll be
`
`referring to the IPR that relates to the '657 patent?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Minnesota
`1-877-489-0367
`www.deposition.com
`
`CFAD v. Anacor, IPR2015-01776, CFAD EXHIBIT 1048
`
`

`
`PAUL J. REIDER, PH.D July 21, 2016
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` DR. FLETCHER: Okay. I'd like to enter
`
`Deposition Exhibit Number 3, which is the notice of
`
`deposition in Case Number IPR2015-01785, relating to
`
`patent number 7,767,657.
`
` - - -
`
` (Deposition Exhibit Number 3 was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` - - -
`
`BY DR. FLETCHER:
`
` Q. And Dr. Reider, we can agr