throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ----------------------------
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ----------------------------
` COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
` v.
`
` ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
` -----------------------------
` CASE IPR2016-00034
` CASE IPR2016-00036
` CASE IPR2016-00038
` CASE IPR2016-00039
` CASE IPR2016-00040
` CASE IPR2016-00041
` U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
` ----------------------------
`
` One Battery Park Plaza
` New York, New York
` December 2, 2016
` 10:10 a.m.
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DAVID PECK,
`held at the above-mentioned time and place,
`before Randi Friedman, a Registered Professional
`Reporter, within and for the State of New York.
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 1
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
` HUGHES HUBBARD & REED, LLP
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` One Battery Park Plaza
` New York, New York 10004
` BY: JAMES R. KLAIBER, ESQ.
` MICHAEL POLKA, ESQ.
`
` SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 599 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10022
` BY: JOSEPH PURCELL, ESQ.
` PATRICK R. COLSHER, ESQ.
`
`Also Present:
` Ryan Licursi - Videographer
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 2
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` STIPULATIONS
` IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between
`the attorneys for the respective parties hereto,
`that:
` All rights provided by the C.P.L.R.,
`and Part 221 of the Uniform Rules for the Conduct
`of Depositions, including the right to object to
`any question, except as to the form, or to move
`to strike any testimony at this examination is
`reserved; and in addition, the failure to object
`to any question or to move to strike any
`testimony at this examination shall not be a bar
`or a waiver to make such motion at, and is
`reserved to, the time of this action.
` This deposition may be sworn to by the
`witness being examined before a Notary Public
`other than the Notary Public before whom this
`examination was begun, but the failure to do so
`or to return the original of this deposition to
`counsel, shall not be deemed a waiver or the
`rights provided by Rule 3116, C.P.L.R., and shall
`be controlled thereby.
` The filing of the original of this
`deposition is waived.
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 3
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` MR. LICURSI: We're now on the
` record. Please note that the microphones
` are sensitive and may pick up whispering and
` private conversations. Please turn off all
` cellphones or place them away from the
` microphones, as they can interfere with the
` deposition audio. Recording will continue
` until all parties agree to go off the
` record.
` My name is Ryan Licursi,
` representing Veritext Legal Solutions. The
` date today is December 2nd, 2016, and the
` time is approximately 10:10. This
` deposition is being held at Hughes Hubbard &
` Reed, LLP, located at One Battery Park
` Plaza, New York, New York, 10004, and is
` being taken by counsel for the patent owner.
` The caption of the case is Costco Wholesale
` Corporation versus Robert Bosch, LLC. This
` case is being held in the United States
` Patent & Trademark Office before the Patent
` Trial and Appeal Board. There are six case
` numbers associated: IPR2016-00034, 36, 38,
` 39, 40 and 41. The name of the witness is
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 4
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` Mr. David Peck.
` At this time, the attorneys
` present please represent -- please identify
` themselves and the parties they represent.
` MR. PURCELL: This is Joseph
` Purcell of Shearman & Sterling, LLP,
` representing the patent owner, Robert Bosch,
` LLC.
` MR. COLSHER: Patrick Colsher,
` also of Shearman & Sterling, representing
` the patent owner.
` MR. KLAIBER: James R. Klaiber,
` Hughes Hubbard & Reed, representing the
` petitioner, Costco Wholesale Corporation.
` With me is Mr. Michael Polka, also of Hughes
` Hubbard & Reed, also representing Costco
` Wholesale Corporation.
` MR. LICURSI: Our court reporter,
` Randi Friedman, also representing Veritext
` Legal Solutions, will swear in the witness
` and we can proceed.
` * * *
` DAVID PECK, the witness herein,
` having first been duly sworn, was examined
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 5
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
` D. Peck
` and testified as follows:
` * * *
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q Good morning.
` A Good morning.
` Q Could you please state your name for
`the record.
` A It's David Emery Peck.
` Q Have you been deposed before?
` A Yes.
` Q How many times?
` A Probably 15 times.
` Q Can you remember when the last time
`was?
` A It was three years ago.
` Q Okay. Do you need me to go over any
`of the ground rules?
` A No.
` Q Okay. I'll just remind you that if
`you don't understand any questions, would you
`please tell me you don't understand the question
`and perhaps I can rephrase it to make it clearer
`for you? If you don't say that you don't
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 6
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
` D. Peck
`understand the question, I will assume that you
`did understand it; you understand?
` A Sure.
` Q Is there any reason you cannot testify
`truthfully or accurately today?
` A No.
` Q Anything that might impair your
`ability to remember anything?
` A No.
` Q Are you being compensated for your
`testimony today?
` A Yes.
` Q How much are you being compensated?
` A $150.00 an hour.
` Q Were you compensated for your time
`spent preparing the declarations in these cases?
` A Yes.
` Q Was that at the same rate?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you understand that you are here
`today to give testimony in six inter partes
`review proceedings?
` A Yes.
` Q I'm going to hand you a document
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 7
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
` D. Peck
`marked as Costco Exhibit 1100.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A Yes, I do.
` Q Can you tell me what it is?
` A That is the Affidavit that I prepared
`and submitted, I forget the date. Looks like
`it's October 24.
` Q This is not the only declaration you
`signed for these cases; is that correct?
` A No.
` Q You signed five more?
` A Yes.
` Q Just for housekeeping purposes, I'm
`going to give you copies of the other five
`declarations and ask you to identify them. We
`can put them aside afterwards.
` The document I have just handed you is
`also marked Costco Exhibit 1100; correct?
` A Correct.
` Q I understand that the six declarations
`were the same except for the caption on the front
`page and the headers on each of the other pages,
`but I just want to make sure I'm correct.
` A They are the same. I did not change
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 8
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
` D. Peck
`anything; correct. So the front page -- and I
`signed each one individually when I scanned them
`in. So they each have my own signature, but they
`were done simultaneous, one after the other.
` Q Okay. And the text in each of the
`perhaps is the same?
` A The same.
` Q Okay, great. I think we can skip the
`other ones then. Let's focus on --
` MR. KLAIBER: I would agree with
` that. Counsel, for the record, I'm willing
` to stipulate to everything that you just
` said.
` MR. PURCELL: So am I.
`BY MR. PURCELL:
` Q All right. So let's just look at the
`one marked IPR2016-00034.
` A Okay.
` Q Did you prepare this declaration?
` A Yes.
` Q When did you begin working on it?
` A I believe it was somewhere just before
`mid-August.
` Q Who -- excuse me.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 9
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` D. Peck
` Who approached you to work on this
`declaration?
` A Mr. Klaiber.
` Q And when did he approach you?
` A Early August. I don't -- can't give
`you an exact date, but I'm guessing before the
`15th.
` Q In Paragraph 1 in this declaration,
`you state that you reviewed a bunch of documents;
`right?
` A Correct.
` Q And you say that petitioner, Costco
`Wholesale Corporation, asked you to review these
`documents; correct?
` A Yeah, but a lot of the documents here
`were reviewed earlier.
` Q When?
` A So that would have been approximately
`the summer before when I was given the patents,
`but obviously I didn't have the responses that I
`was responding to, so --
` Q Summer of 2016?
` A No, '15.
` Q Summer of 2015?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 10
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
` D. Peck
` A Correct.
` Q When did Mr. Klaiber first approach
`you?
` A Originally I was talked to in
`February, but not by Klaiber, by the senior
`partner. I don't remember his name.
` Q Was it someone here at Hughes Hubbard
`& Reed?
` A Oh, yes, of course.
` Q Was it James Dabney?
` A Yes. Sorry. I'm not a good name
`person.
` Q Quite all right.
` A So I had come out here, I think it was
`in February. It was just before the New York
`Auto Show was on -- going on at the time. I just
`remember that, 'cause we went by there on the way
`back to the airport.
` Q Okay. When Mr. Dabney first
`approached you, did it have anything to do with
`these IPRs?
` A No. It was more on the patent side.
`So we were talking about patents and kind of
`looking at the patents and what they meant. Then
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 11
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
` D. Peck
`the summer I was asked to come out, and there was
`a group of people here. They were reviewing who
`was going to do what, and so on the patent side,
`I was not asked to do that. I was asked to be an
`industry expert if they needed one at some point
`in time. Also then it was very quiet until last
`August, when I was asked about the responses and
`was asked to give my deposition -- excuse me, my
`information about those responses. And I was
`restricted to one small area.
` Q Okay. Did anyone here at Hughes
`Hubbard ask you why they were asking you to
`review these documents?
` A Well, I was supposed to give my
`knowledge from what was happening in that
`industry, and at Trico Products specifically.
` Q You mentioned a moment ago that you
`were restricted to one small area; do you
`remember that?
` A Yes.
` Q What was that one small area?
` A Well, it was responding to a
`gentleman, I think it's Kashnowski, and then to
`talk about the issue of what is significant
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 12
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
` D. Peck
`design issues on wiper systems and blade design.
` Q And that is the area that ultimately
`your declarations covered?
` A Correct.
` Q Here in Paragraph 1 there are six
`patents listed; do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q When is the first time you ever saw
`those patents?
` A That would have been the summer of
`'15. Probably it was sent to me before I came
`out for whatever the meeting was.
` Q Did you ever see them while you were
`at Trico?
` A No.
` Q Did you write this declaration
`yourself?
` A Right now how that worked was they
`told me we needed a declaration, and they
`explained what it needed to be. There was a lot
`of legal language that I'm not able to write, so
`Mr. Klaiber and company had helped doing that.
`And we went back and forth on many conference
`calls, where I would actually tell them what I
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 13
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` D. Peck
`mean and what my knowledge was. They would write
`it down, and I would have to correct it two or
`three, sometimes four times. I think there was
`approximately ten calls, maybe, to try to get it
`right.
` Q Who prepared the first draft?
` A It was one of the people at Hughes
`Hubbard.
` Q Did you select the language used in
`the declaration?
` A The language describing anything about
`the wiper systems and technically, yes. Not
`about the legal phrases and how things had to
`be -- I'm not able to do that, because it's not
`my field. I'm an engineer. I'm a practicing
`engineer. I'm not in the patent area, other than
`I do have patents, of course.
` Q You're still a practicing engineer
`today?
` A Oh, yes.
` Q What do you do?
` A Full time. Excuse me?
` Q What is your job today?
` A I am a subject matter expert at a
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 14
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
` D. Peck
`company called Mahindra & Mahindra, North
`American technical center.
` Q What are your responsibilities?
` A Right now I work on brakes, rear drive
`axles, and I'm building a department for them on
`electric motors for research and development on
`hybrids.
` Q Do you do any work related to
`windshield wiper blades?
` A I do work with windshield wiper
`systems, because right now I'm the most
`experienced person there. Although the design
`responsibility for integrating it into the
`vehicle is in the body group and I'm in the
`chassis group. So I coach them.
` I am then brought into the meetings to
`discuss them to make sure they understand what
`the parameters were, because the people on the
`Mahindra team didn't work on wiper systems, so I
`had to train them in what is important on the
`wiper system.
` Q Do you work on wiper blades
`specifically, or on other aspects of wiper
`systems?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 15
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
` D. Peck
` A Well, it was the whole system, so
`basically what I had to do is the wiper blade for
`a product, it was called the U-321, which is kind
`of like a smaller mini-van that's for production
`in India for the India and -- that Asian market.
`The wiper arm and blade was made by an Indian
`company. It's the standard old blades which we
`call whiffletrees or the structured blades. And
`the arms were made by -- I forget the name of the
`company. I didn't deal with that. The linkage
`in the motor system was built by a company called
`Mitsuba, which is a Japanese company. All of the
`testing was done at Mitsuba down in their test
`facility and manufacturing facility down in
`Indiana. So I had to help them to make sure all
`the testing was done correctly. I helped them
`say, like, for example, durability was one and a
`half million cycles. And it goes on and on and
`on the types of testing you have to do. So we
`game to an agreement with the body group and
`Mitsuba on what testing and what requirements
`would be needed for meeting the wiper
`requirements for making a successful wiper. So
`that's what I was doing.
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 16
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
` D. Peck
` Q Okay.
` A But more coaching them, because I
`was -- I wasn't in the body group. I was a
`chassis guy, so we're the structural type.
` Q Now in some places in this
`declaration, you use the term "flat-spring
`wiper"; right?
` A Flex --
` Q I'm sorry. In some places in this
`declaration, you use the term "flat-spring
`wiper"?
` A Flat-spring or beam blade. There's a
`lot of different mythologies the way people
`explain it. We always called it beam blade.
`Some people call it flat-springs. Or flat
`blades.
` Q When did you first hear the term
`"flat-spring wiper"?
` A The first time I heard "beam blade"
`would be back in probably June or July of '97.
` Q When did you first hear "flat-spring
`wiper" specifically?
` A Yeah, that timeframe.
` Q Same time?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 17
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` D. Peck
` A Yeah.
` Q Are the terms interchangeable?
` A Well, a flat-spring wiper, we called
`it a beam blade. It was always called a beam
`blade at Trico. So flat-spring, probably I heard
`the term a little later because I think that was
`one that I understand Bosch used. We always
`referred to it as a beam blade, because it is a
`beam member.
` So beam, flat-spring, they're the
`same. We can get into type of beam. That's a
`different story.
` Q So I understand from your declaration
`that you worked at Trico as well; correct?
` A At that time, I was working full time
`at Trico; that is correct.
` Q And that was April 1997 through
`July 2013?
` A Yes. I think I actually started in
`mid-March, but that was -- the first full month
`was April; that's correct.
` Q And during that time from 1997 to
`2002, you participated in the design and
`development of beam blades?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 18
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
` D. Peck
` A I participated very deeply up to
`probably the time the equipment was transferred
`over to the plant. That would be 2004. It's
`actually 2003. I'll say I transferred the
`equipment I was responsible for on, like,
`February of '03. And then they had to commission
`it down at the plant. I transferred the engineer
`we had brought over from South Africa with it.
`And he became the foreman of the production line.
`I was then moving -- I was R&D at the time at
`Trico products, so I had multiple projects. And
`I was then working more on a direct driver wiper
`system linkages or DC brushless motors. But I
`was then working with and sat in all the meetings
`when they were developing it, because now it was
`turned into our production product. They had
`iterations of various ways of dealing with the
`air foil, doing the coupler and things like that,
`which would be something I would be aware of and
`involved in, but not as the engineer because we
`were moving on. We had solved all the technical
`problems long before then.
` Q When you say your "production
`product," what do you mean by that?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 19
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
` D. Peck
` A That would be the beam blade which I
`referred to in this report as the taper-taper
`version, which was the one that originally we
`picked up the rights to from Adriaan Swanepoel
`out of South Africa. And the prototype facility
`was at a company called Cobanco, which was under
`Anglo American.
` Q Was the taper-taper version a product
`that ultimately became Innovision?
` A Yes. That was Innovision, correct.
` Q What was your role in developing
`Innovision?
` A Okay. You want me to explain kind of
`generically the whole process, how it worked?
`Not the process, but how I got involved or when I
`started?
` Q Yes, that would be great.
` A Okay, great. So in September of '97,
`we went on a trip down to South Africa. So we
`were informed of this potential back in the
`June/July-ish, but the actual trip to
`Johannesburg to Cobanco where the manufacturing
`prototype facility was for the beam blade or flat
`blade -- if I say "beam blade," is that okay?
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 20
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
` D. Peck
` Q Yes. I'll probably say "beam blade,"
`too, but please go on.
` A Okay. So we went down there and we
`were on what was called a look/see trip. So we
`wanted to see what the technology was. What did
`they have. What were they doing. Was it
`acceptable.
` So at that particular time, we saw the
`prototype which was a tapered rolling mill.
`Because it's a taper, that's the one side which
`is the metal thickness of the beam. We saw a box
`where they would stretch it and then use a CO2
`laser to cut the width, so now it's taper-taper.
`But it is in a material that was an SAE 6150,
`what we call fully-annealed ductile material, so
`it was a Rockwell RB-28. So it's dead soft, so
`we could just bend it, the spring.
` It was then -- they had a research
`institute, and I forget the name of it in
`Johannesburg, that developed what they called the
`TQB process, temper-bend-quench.
`Temper-quench-bend; sorry. That's where they
`would pull it over a ceramic form block, and they
`had an induction heating coil that would heat the
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 21
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` D. Peck
`part. They clench it with water. Then they
`would back-heat it to a lower temperature to
`temper it and then quench it. Now it was a fully
`hard spring, a Rockwell C-5860. Then the part
`would be cleaned. You would paint it. They
`would trim the ends off on it. Then they would
`glue an element on it and install a coupler. So
`that was the process.
` The tapered rolling mill was
`originally designed by a company called TechNovo
`of Pretoria by Dr. Eugene Feree(sic.), and I was
`asked on this look/see trip to determine where
`they were from a manufacturing.
` We also had two design engineers.
`Let's see. We had Will Young and Jeff Stewart,
`and then we had one technician. And we had a
`patent attorney, which was a Trico employee named
`Rick Jones. So that was the team on the
`look/see.
` So we came out of it. We determined
`one thing. My comments were the tapered rolling
`mill, although it proved you could taper and roll
`the taper, I did not like the bearing structure
`'cause it had cantilevered rollers, so you had an
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 22
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
` D. Peck
`under ram that would push up with an electric
`drive motor, both below and above that, that
`would then squeeze the part. And then you would
`pull it through with a tension motor on the other
`side as you drove it through. The ram would put
`out approximately 50,000 pounds of force if you
`went from the thickness, which was 1.6
`millimeters thick down to anywhere from 12 at the
`thicker point down to as low as .4 millimeters.
`The width of the beam when it was trimmed would
`be 16 millimeters, and we would trim it to its
`widest point would be approximately
`12 millimeters, depending on the part and it
`would be whatever thickness width it needed to be
`for the compliance that you wanted.
` So we determined that the rolling mill
`needed to be upgraded both from getting rid of
`cantilever rollers to get into what I call
`straddle mount, which is bearings on both sides,
`because the problem with cantilevers, the upper
`and lower one would go at a slightly different
`arc which means you would be rolling a trapezoid,
`and they would cant the beam, the raw member
`going in a little bit to try to get it to be sort
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 23
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
` D. Peck
`of flat in the middle, and then they would turn
`the sides.
` The next thing was, I did not like the
`cutting box and the CO2 laser. I wanted to bring
`it inline with the tapered rolling mill so it
`would be inline laser trimming.
` We then determined that the
`heat-treating process, that's the TQB process,
`needed to be just productionized. They defined
`how to do it, but they didn't define it as a
`production equipment. It was a single,
`standalone operation, so that was the next
`problem we solved.
` And the cleaning and painting, that
`was no big deal. The trimming, we saw that they
`didn't have turned over edges, so you could have
`something that would catch and cut you, so we
`said we would have to form the ends down so that
`you wouldn't have a sharp point at the edge,
`which is typical in automotive.
` We did not like the aesthetics of the
`coupler. We thought it was just plain ugly, so
`we figured we needed a new coupler. And I think
`besides the biggest issue was the adhesive they
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 24
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
` D. Peck
`were using was just plain shoe glue. Like
`leather shoe glue, and we thought that was
`totally unacceptable. So we said came of it and
`said, those are the areas, if we pick up the
`technology, we have to address it.
` Then it went very quiet for
`approximately a year while they were negotiating
`with the inventor, Adriaan Swanepoel. I wasn't
`involved in that at all as to what he wanted from
`either cash royalties or whatever. I don't know.
`I think it was just an X amount per blade. And
`then they were negotiating a buyout of all the
`prototype development equipment from Anglo
`America. So that was done, I think I heard, in
`August of '98.
` So we went on what was called due
`diligence. So I was on the due diligence team,
`where I went through in detail all of the records
`to make sure that before they signed the deal,
`that we actually wanted to do it, 'cause we had,
`you know, all the Confidentiality agreements.
` Then they decided to go forward, and
`we got the funding to actually pay for the Anglo
`American buyout. So in I believe it was January
`
`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
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2029 - Page 25
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
` D. Peck
`of '99, I'll get my years straight, we went down
`to the transfer, so we boxed up everything we
`wanted which would be the prototype equipment and
`all that. We brought it back to Rochester Hills
`to our technical

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket