`
` 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