·1· · · · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`
`·7· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · Inter Partes Review No.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2016-00060
`·8· ·DNA GENOTEK INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent 8,221,381 B2
`·9· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`10· ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · JOHN M. COLLINS, Ph.D.
`
`17
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · August 24, 2016
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8:57 a.m.
`
`20
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · 12531 High Bluff Drive
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·San Diego, California
`22
`
`23
`
`24· · · · · · · Renee Kelch, RPR, CLR, CSR No. 5063
`
`25
`
`ANCESTRY EX. 1024
`
`1
`
`
`
`·2· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC,
`
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`
`·7· · · · · · vs.· · · · · · · · · Inter Partes Review No.
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2016-00060
`·8· ·DNA GENOTEK INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent 8,221,381 B2
`·9· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`10· ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · JOHN M. COLLINS, Ph.D.
`
`17
`
`18· · · · · · · · · · · · August 24, 2016
`
`19· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8:57 a.m.
`
`20
`
`21· · · · · · · · · · 12531 High Bluff Drive
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·San Diego, California
`22
`
`23
`
`24· · · · · · · Renee Kelch, RPR, CLR, CSR No. 5063
`
`25
`
`ANCESTRY EX. 1024
`
`1
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`·2· ·For the Petitioner Ancestry.com DNA, LLC:
`
`·3· · · ·FENWICK & WEST
`· · · · ·MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER, ESQ.
`·4· · · ·JENNIFER R. BUSH, ESQ.
`· · · · ·801 California Street
`·5· · · ·Mountain View, California 94041
`· · · · ·650.988.8500
`·6· · · ·650.938.5200 Fax
`· · · · ·msacksteder@fenwick.com
`·7
`
`·8· ·For DNA Genotek Inc.:
`
`·9· · · ·MORRISON FOERSTER
`· · · · ·JOHN R. LANHAM, ESQ.
`10· · · ·DESMOND O'SULLIVAN, ESQ.
`· · · · ·Suite 100
`11· · · ·12531 High Bluff Drive
`· · · · ·San Diego, California 92130
`12· · · ·858.314.7601
`· · · · ·858.523.2803 Fax
`13· · · ·jlanham@mofo.com
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2· ·WITNESS: JOHN M. COLLINS, Ph.D.
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·5· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· ·EXHIBITS· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · ·MARKED
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 1022· Resubmitted Petition for Inter· · · ·9
`· · · · · · · · · ·Partes Review for US Patent
`·4· · · · · · · · ·8,221,381
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 1023· Paper 19 from the IPR,· · · · · · · 13
`· · · · · · · · · ·Institution Decision from The
`·6· · · · · · · · ·Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`·7· ·(Original exhibits attached to original
`
`·8· ·transcript)
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·PRIOR EXHIBITS REFERENCED
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit· · ·Page
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 1001· · 14
`
`14· · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 1007· · 65
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 1011· · 37
`
`16· · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 2005· · ·5
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · ·Exhibit 2011· · 76
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF JOHN M. COLLINS, Ph.D.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · · AUGUST 24, 2016
`
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · ·JOHN M. COLLINS, Ph.D.,
`
`·5· · · having been first duly sworn, testifies as follows:
`
`·6
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`·8· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· Good morning, Dr. Collins.
`
`10· · · ·A.· Good morning.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· Do you understand that you are being
`
`12· ·cross-examined in what's called an IPR trial before the
`
`13· ·Patent Trial and Appeal Board?
`
`14· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· And you provided a declaration in connection
`
`16· ·with the IPR; correct?
`
`17· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· Do you understand that that declaration is your
`
`19· ·direct testimony in the IPR trial?
`
`20· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`21· · · · · ·MR. SACKSTEDER:· I'm going to put in front of
`
`22· ·you your declaration.· It's Exhibit 2005.
`
`23· · · · · ·(Exhibit 2005 referenced)
`
`24· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`25· · · ·Q.· What is Exhibit 2005?
`
`5
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· It's my declaration in the IPR, Number
`
`·2· ·IPR2016-00060.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· And that is your direct testimony in the IPR;
`
`·4· ·correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Turn to paragraph -- actually, start at
`
`·7· ·paragraph 10.· Paragraph 10 through 12 show the
`
`·8· ·materials that you reviewed and considered in the
`
`·9· ·process of forming your direct testimony; is that
`
`10· ·correct?
`
`11· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· Did you review beyond what is listed in
`
`13· ·paragraphs 10 through 12 any other materials that are
`
`14· ·not listed here?
`
`15· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`16· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Well, certainly over the period
`
`17· ·of time I've read a lot of other things, but these are
`
`18· ·the materials that were pertinent to my opinion.
`
`19· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`20· · · ·Q.· When you say you've read a lot of things,
`
`21· ·you've read them for the purposes of forming your
`
`22· ·opinions in your direct testimony?
`
`23· · · ·A.· No.
`
`24· · · ·Q.· You just read them for whatever purpose;
`
`25· ·correct?
`
`6
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· Background information, or whatever.· Interest,
`
`·2· ·my interest.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· You have also offered testimony in a couple of
`
`·4· ·litigation matters that are related to this IPR;
`
`·5· ·correct?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· I believe --
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· That may be an inexact question.
`
`·8· · · · · ·You have provided at least two declarations
`
`·9· ·concerning validity of the '381 patent or a patent
`
`10· ·that's related to it in litigation matters; correct?
`
`11· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· And you may have reviewed additional materials
`
`13· ·for that purpose; correct?
`
`14· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· But you did not consider any of those materials
`
`16· ·in the formulation of your opinions in your direct
`
`17· ·testimony for this IPR; correct?
`
`18· · · ·A.· They were not -- they did not influence the
`
`19· ·opinions I put forward, correct.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· So you didn't consider them for purposes of
`
`21· ·your direct testimony; correct?
`
`22· · · ·A.· Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "consider."
`
`23· ·Because if I read something and it's completely
`
`24· ·inconsistent with my understanding, I would certainly
`
`25· ·consider it.· But anything else that I read, it didn't
`
`7
`
`
`
`·1· ·influence my -- didn't change my opinion.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· You attempted to give a complete listing of the
`
`·3· ·materials you reviewed and considered in formulating
`
`·4· ·your opinions for your direct testimony in paragraphs 10
`
`·5· ·through 12 of your declaration; correct?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· Yes, that's correct.
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· I guess we do need to mark this.
`
`·8· · · ·A.· By the way, if I can add, in reading my
`
`·9· ·declaration, I noticed there were two errors.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· Oh, sure.· Would you like to correct them,
`
`11· ·then?
`
`12· · · ·A.· Yeah.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· That would be great.
`
`14· · · ·A.· They're both kind of formatting or typo errors.
`
`15· ·I'm trying to remember.· One was a heading -- yeah, it's
`
`16· ·in paragraph 33.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· Okay.
`
`18· · · ·A.· The last sentence should have been a header,
`
`19· ·and that would have been labeled b.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· All right.
`
`21· · · ·A.· And then subsequently, between paragraph 37 and
`
`22· ·38, the header that's labeled b would become c.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· Those weren't the corrections I thought you
`
`24· ·were going to make.
`
`25· · · ·A.· There was one other, where I dropped a "no" in
`
`8
`
`
`
`·1· ·a sentence, and I'm trying to remember where it was. I
`
`·2· ·don't remember exactly which paragraph it is.· So I can
`
`·3· ·look for it, or as we go through it I can notice it
`
`·4· ·later on today.
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· Just let me know when you come across it.
`
`·6· · · · · ·I think there's one other actually in
`
`·7· ·paragraph 12.· You identify Exhibit 2001, which is an
`
`·8· ·article, and I think it might have been Exhibit 2011.
`
`·9· · · ·A.· Oh, okay.· Thank you.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· So if you'll agree with that, then I think
`
`11· ·we've corrected everything unless you find something
`
`12· ·else.
`
`13· · · ·A.· All right.· So those are the three.· And again
`
`14· ·I'm sure you're right.· I just don't recall 2001 to
`
`15· ·2011.
`
`16· · · · · ·MR. SACKSTEDER:· Okay.· So I'm going to mark
`
`17· ·this as Exhibit 1020.
`
`18· · · · · ·(Exhibit 1020 marked and later changed to
`
`19· · · · · ·Exhibit 1022)
`
`20· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you.
`
`21· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`22· · · ·Q.· Exhibit 1020 (Exhibit 1022) is the Resubmitted
`
`23· ·Petition for Inter Partes Review for US Patent
`
`24· ·8,221,381.
`
`25· · · · · ·Have you seen Exhibit 1020 (Exhibit 1022)
`
`9
`
`
`
`·1· ·before?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· Did you consider it in forming your opinions
`
`·4· ·for your direct testimony?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· If I remember correctly, that's Paper 5.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Yes.
`
`·7· · · ·A.· So yes.
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· On page small Roman numeral vii and viii is a
`
`·9· ·listing of the exhibits for the petition.· Do you see
`
`10· ·that?
`
`11· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· And among those exhibits are Exhibit 1005.· Do
`
`13· ·you see that?
`
`14· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· And that's Plaintiff DNA Genotek's Opening
`
`16· ·Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
`
`17· ·and that lists a case number.· Do you see that?
`
`18· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· You did not review and consider that for
`
`20· ·purposes of your direct testimony; correct?
`
`21· · · ·A.· I have read this.· I don't recall that it
`
`22· ·influenced my testimony here from the IPR.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· So you don't list it as something that you
`
`24· ·reviewed and considered for purposes of formulating your
`
`25· ·opinions for direct testimony; correct?
`
`10
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· And then Exhibit 1006 is the Declaration of
`
`·3· ·Juan C. Lasheras, Ph.D., in that same litigation matter;
`
`·4· ·correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· And again, you don't list that as something
`
`·7· ·that you reviewed and considered in forming your
`
`·8· ·opinions for your direct testimony; correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· I don't list that, correct.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· Do you understand that your opinions in this
`
`11· ·IPR are limited to what is stated in your direct
`
`12· ·testimony?
`
`13· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`14· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't understand the context of
`
`15· ·your statement.
`
`16· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`17· · · ·Q.· You gave your direct testimony in your
`
`18· ·declaration; correct?
`
`19· · · ·A.· Correct.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· And that is your testimony for the IPR;
`
`21· ·correct?
`
`22· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· So you discuss -- why don't you just tell me,
`
`24· ·what are the arguments that you raise in your direct
`
`25· ·testimony to rebut the arguments that have been made by
`
`11
`
`
`
`·1· ·Ancestry DNA.
`
`·2· · · ·A.· Well, they're outlined in the declaration.· So
`
`·3· ·the first is on page 9 that "O'Donovan does not
`
`·4· ·anticipate claim 1 of the '318 patent."
`
`·5· · · · · ·And then on page 15, that "O'Donovan in view of
`
`·6· ·KCCL does not render claim 7 obvious."
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· Are those all the opinions that you offer in
`
`·8· ·your direct testimony?
`
`·9· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's what I describe in the
`
`11· ·declaration.
`
`12· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`13· · · ·Q.· That's all the opinions that you offer in your
`
`14· ·direct testimony; correct?
`
`15· · · ·A.· That's a summary of them, correct.· There's
`
`16· ·more detail behind each one of those in the declaration
`
`17· ·supporting those positions.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· But those are -- you're limited to those broad
`
`19· ·opinions; correct?
`
`20· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`21· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't -- I'm not a lawyer. I
`
`22· ·don't understand exactly what I'm limited to.
`
`23· · · · · ·MR. SACKSTEDER:· All right.· Let's look at
`
`24· ·Paper 19, which I believe you also considered.
`
`25· · · · · ·I'm not sure if we need to mark this or not,
`
`12
`
`
`
`·1· ·but I'm going to mark it just in case.· This will be
`
`·2· ·1021.
`
`·3· · · · · ·(Exhibit 1021 marked and later changed to
`
`·4· · · · · ·Exhibit 1023)
`
`·5· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Exhibit 1021 (Exhibit 1023) is Paper 19 from
`
`·7· ·the IPR.· It is the institution decision from the Patent
`
`·8· ·Trial and Appeal Board.· Do you agree with that,
`
`·9· ·Dr. Collins?
`
`10· · · ·A.· It seems like a reasonable summary, yes.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· If you look at the very last page -- not the
`
`12· ·very last page.· Page 22.· Page 22 discusses which
`
`13· ·claims the IPR is instituted on.· Do you see that?
`
`14· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· And there's reference to claim 2.· Do you see
`
`16· ·that?
`
`17· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· Do you offer any separate opinion in your
`
`19· ·direct testimony concerning claim 2?
`
`20· · · ·A.· Well, in that claim 2 is dependent on claim 1,
`
`21· ·I do.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· So other than your discussion of claim 1, do
`
`23· ·you offer any other testimony in your direct testimony
`
`24· ·concerning claim 2?
`
`25· · · ·A.· Well, yes, I use claim 1 as a representative
`
`13
`
`
`
`·1· ·claim.· So all of the discussion related to claim 1
`
`·2· ·would apply to all claims.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· Putting Exhibit 101 -- sorry, 1001 in front of
`
`·4· ·you.· That is the '381 patent; correct, sir?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`·6· · · · · ·(Exhibit 1001 referenced)
`
`·7· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· So look at claim 2, please.
`
`·9· · · · · ·Claim 2 says, "The container system of claim 1
`
`10· ·wherein said lid comprises a wall defining all or a
`
`11· ·portion of the perimeter of said reservoir, said wall
`
`12· ·have a sealing service for sealingly attaching said
`
`13· ·pierceable membrane"; correct?
`
`14· · · ·A.· Correct.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· Your direct testimony contains no discussion of
`
`16· ·the portion of claim 2 that begins with "wherein";
`
`17· ·correct?
`
`18· · · ·A.· I wouldn't say so, no.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· What portion of that section -- strike that.
`
`20· · · · · ·Where in your declaration do you discuss
`
`21· ·whether the "lid comprises a wall defining all or a
`
`22· ·portion of the perimeter of said reservoir"?
`
`23· · · ·A.· Well, as I indicated, I used claim 1 as a
`
`24· ·representative claim, and there are a number of elements
`
`25· ·describing how the '381 works that would include some of
`
`14
`
`
`
`·1· ·those elements in claim 2.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· You're talking about your discussion of the
`
`·3· ·"configured to be removably engage" limitation in
`
`·4· ·claim 1; correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· No.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Would you look through your direct testimony
`
`·7· ·declaration and point me to where you discuss whether
`
`·8· ·the lid comprises a wall defining all or a portion of
`
`·9· ·the perimeter of said reservoir?
`
`10· · · ·A.· I don't recall -- I'm happy to look through my
`
`11· ·declaration if you'd like.· But I don't recall
`
`12· ·explicitly addressing that term.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· If you think you addressed it explicitly or
`
`14· ·implicitly, I'd like you to point me to where you do it
`
`15· ·in your declaration, please.
`
`16· · · ·A.· So -- well, implicitly, I'd be happy to look
`
`17· ·through.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· Sure.
`
`19· · · ·A.· Now, as I go through it, claim 18 -- not claim.
`
`20· ·Paragraph 18.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· Paragraph 18.
`
`22· · · ·A.· On page 4 provides overview of the '381 patent.
`
`23· ·That would relate to what's described in claim 2.
`
`24· · · ·Q.· All right.· Let me ask the question in a more
`
`25· ·precise form.· You discuss two prior art references in
`
`15
`
`
`
`·1· ·your direct testimony; correct?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· That's my recollection.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· The O'Donovan patent and the KCCL patent
`
`·4· ·application; correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· Those are the shorthands that we've been using,
`
`·6· ·yes.
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· Are you comfortable using them, and you'll
`
`·8· ·understand what I mean when I use them?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· Is there anyplace in your direct testimony
`
`11· ·where you discuss whether the additional limitation of
`
`12· ·claim 2 is satisfied by the O'Donovan patent?
`
`13· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`14· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Satisfied?· I don't believe so,
`
`15· ·no.
`
`16· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`17· · · ·Q.· All right.· So you don't testify about whether
`
`18· ·O'Donovan discloses that limitation; correct?
`
`19· · · ·A.· I described O'Donovan.· And again, I'd have to
`
`20· ·go back and see exactly what language I used.· But I
`
`21· ·describe -- I focused on claim 1 as a representative
`
`22· ·claim from which all the other claims are dependent.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· You understand that the dependent claims add
`
`24· ·additional limitations to claim 1; correct?
`
`25· · · ·A.· Yes, I do.
`
`16
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Q.· You do not discuss in your direct testimony
`
`·2· ·whether the O'Donovan reference discloses the additional
`
`·3· ·limitation of claim 2; correct?
`
`·4· · · ·A.· I focused on claim 1 as being a representative
`
`·5· ·claim, and again, all of the subsequent claims were
`
`·6· ·dependent on claim 1.
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· So you talk about claim 1?
`
`·8· · · ·A.· I focused on claim 1 within the context of the
`
`·9· ·patent as being representative of what's disclosed.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· All right.· Do you understand that the
`
`11· ·limitation "wherein said lid comprises a wall defining
`
`12· ·all or a portion of the perimeter of said reservoir,
`
`13· ·said wall having a sealing surface for sealingly
`
`14· ·attaching said pierceable membrane" does not explicitly
`
`15· ·appear in claim 1?
`
`16· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· So you talked about claim 1 and the explicit
`
`18· ·claim recitations; correct?
`
`19· · · ·A.· I definitely did that, yes.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· You don't specifically talk about that
`
`21· ·additional limitation of claim 2; correct?
`
`22· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`23· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Again, I may have addressed it in
`
`24· ·talking about how the invention works.· Again, using
`
`25· ·claim 1 as a representative claim.
`
`17
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· Can you look through your declaration and point
`
`·3· ·me to a place where you discuss whether the O'Donovan
`
`·4· ·patent discloses the additional limitation of claim 2?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· I'd be happy to look through it, but I don't
`
`·6· ·recall explicitly addressing those additional claim
`
`·7· ·terms explicitly.· Instead I would have included them in
`
`·8· ·the general description of claim 1, which is a
`
`·9· ·representative claim.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· Where in your general description of claim 1 do
`
`11· ·you discuss the additional limitation of claim 2?
`
`12· · · ·A.· I don't recall.· I point out, for example,
`
`13· ·paragraph 18, where I describe the patent.· And I'm sure
`
`14· ·there are other places that refer to walls and other
`
`15· ·things.· I can look through, if you wish.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· Please do.
`
`17· · · ·A.· I reference the lid in a number of different
`
`18· ·paragraphs.· That's the lid referred to in claim 2.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· Let me ask it this way:· In your direct
`
`20· ·testimony do you offer the opinion that the additional
`
`21· ·limitation of claim 2 is the disclosed by either
`
`22· ·O'Donovan or KCCL?
`
`23· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not specifically focus on
`
`25· ·the dependent claims because I focused on claim 1
`
`18
`
`
`
`·1· ·because all the subsequent claims were dependent on it,
`
`·2· ·and I used claim 1 as a representative claim to discuss
`
`·3· ·the limitations.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· And I'm asking you about the additional
`
`·5· ·limitation of claim 2.
`
`·6· · · · · ·You don't in your direct testimony anywhere
`
`·7· ·offer an opinion whether or not that additional
`
`·8· ·limitation of claim 2 is disclosed in O'Donovan or KCCL;
`
`·9· ·correct?
`
`10· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Same objection.
`
`11· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Other than what I've said before,
`
`12· ·no, I didn't offer anything in addition to what I said
`
`13· ·before.
`
`14· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`15· · · ·Q.· And what you said before is that you generally
`
`16· ·discussed the patent and you discussed claim 1 as a
`
`17· ·representative claim; correct?
`
`18· · · ·A.· That's correct, and all the other claims are
`
`19· ·dependent on claim 1.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· Claim 1 does not explicitly recite the
`
`21· ·additional limitation of claim 2; correct?
`
`22· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· And it doesn't explicitly recite the additional
`
`24· ·limitation of any of the other claims that depend from
`
`25· ·claim 1; correct?
`
`19
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· And, in fact, that's how dependent claims work,
`
`·3· ·you add a limitation to the claim that is the
`
`·4· ·independent claim from which it depends; correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· That's my understanding, yes.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· So claim 4 is the next instituted claim.
`
`·7· · · · · ·Claim 4 reads, "The container system of
`
`·8· ·claim 1, wherein said pierceable membrane is inert";
`
`·9· ·correct?
`
`10· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· You don't offer any opinion in your direct
`
`12· ·testimony concerning whether O'Donovan or KCCL discloses
`
`13· ·an inert membrane; correct?
`
`14· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`15· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My answer would be similar to
`
`16· ·what we just discussed in claim 2 and all the subsequent
`
`17· ·dependent claims, that I focused on claim 1 as a
`
`18· ·representative claim in the discussion in how the patent
`
`19· ·works.
`
`20· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`21· · · ·Q.· You offer no explicit testimony in your direct
`
`22· ·testimony concerning whether the additional limitation
`
`23· ·of claim 4 is satisfied by O'Donovan or KCCL; correct?
`
`24· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Same objection.
`
`25· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I didn't explicitly, that I
`
`20
`
`
`
`·1· ·recall -- no, I did not address it in my -- in the
`
`·2· ·report.
`
`·3· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· You don't offer an opinion about whether
`
`·5· ·O'Donovan discloses an inert membrane or whether KCCL
`
`·6· ·discloses an inert membrane; correct?
`
`·7· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`·8· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I didn't focus on it.· I focused
`
`·9· ·on claim 1 as a representative claim, from which all
`
`10· ·these subsequent claims are dependent.
`
`11· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`12· · · ·Q.· All right.· So you are not disputing that
`
`13· ·there's no express discussion of the additional
`
`14· ·limitation of claim 4; correct?
`
`15· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`16· · · ·Q.· The next instituted claim is claim 5.· It
`
`17· ·reads, "The container system of claim 1, wherein said
`
`18· ·pierceable membrane remains intact and pierceable at
`
`19· ·temperatures from about negative 80 degrees Celsius to
`
`20· ·about 70 degrees Celsius"; correct?
`
`21· · · ·A.· I see that, yes.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· Is your answer the same about whether you have
`
`23· ·any explicit discussion in your direct testimony of that
`
`24· ·additional limitation?
`
`25· · · ·A.· Yes.· It's the same as the two dependent claims
`
`21
`
`
`
`·1· ·we just talked about.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· All right.· So you have no expressed opinions
`
`·3· ·in your direct testimony concerning whether or not that
`
`·4· ·additional limitation is disclosed by O'Donovan or KCCL;
`
`·5· ·correct?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· Not beyond the discussion of claim 1 as a
`
`·7· ·representative claim and from which the claim 5, I think
`
`·8· ·we're on, is dependent.
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· Claim 8 recites, "The container system of
`
`10· ·claim 1, wherein said first end is generally wider than
`
`11· ·said second end."· Do you see that?
`
`12· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`13· · · ·Q.· Again, your direct testimony contains no
`
`14· ·opinions concerning whether O'Donovan or KCCL discloses
`
`15· ·that additional limitation of claim 8; correct?
`
`16· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`17· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· My answer would be similar to
`
`18· ·what I've described in the three prior dependent claims.
`
`19· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`20· · · ·Q.· So the answer is there is no expressed
`
`21· ·discussion in your direct testimony of that additional
`
`22· ·limitation; correct?
`
`23· · · ·A.· I answer the same way, not beyond the
`
`24· ·discussion of claim 1, which is a representative claim
`
`25· ·which claim -- I think claim 7.· Yeah.· Claim 7 is
`
`22
`
`
`
`·1· ·dependent.· I believe -- I'm sorry, are we on claim 7
`
`·2· ·or --
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· Claim 8.
`
`·4· · · ·A.· Claim 8, I'm sorry.
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· I'm just -- oh, I skipped claim 7.· Sorry. I
`
`·6· ·was talking about claim 8.· We'll go back to claim 7,
`
`·7· ·because I'm sure you were worried about that.
`
`·8· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· I'm sorry, we -- you had said, "Answer the same
`
`10· ·way, not beyond the discussion of claim 1, which is a
`
`11· ·representative claim, which claim --" okay.· So I think
`
`12· ·you did complete your answer.· If you think otherwise,
`
`13· ·please let me know.
`
`14· · · ·A.· And that was reference to claim 8?
`
`15· · · ·Q.· Yes.
`
`16· · · ·A.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· Claim 7 is, "The container system of claim 1,
`
`18· ·wherein the width of said first end is equivalent to the
`
`19· ·width of said second end."
`
`20· · · · · ·Now, you do have some discussion of claim 7;
`
`21· ·correct?
`
`22· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`23· · · ·Q.· But you don't discuss specifically whether
`
`24· ·either O'Donovan or KCCL discloses that additional
`
`25· ·limitation; correct?
`
`23
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · ·MR. LANHAM:· Objection to form.
`
`·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I wouldn't say that.· I have a
`
`·3· ·discussion about claim 7 being -- not being obvious in
`
`·4· ·view of O'Donovan -- or, excuse me, considering
`
`·5· ·O'Donovan and KCCL.
`
`·6· ·BY MR. SACKSTEDER:
`
`·7· · · ·Q.· But that discussion relates to the motivation
`
`·8· ·to combine O'Donovan and KCCL; correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· Well, I wouldn't summarize all the paragraphs
`
`10· ·here with that one sentence, no.· I can go back over the
`
`11· ·arguments if you wish.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· Can you look at your argument concerning
`
`13· ·claim 7 and tell me whether you offer any opinion
`
`14· ·concerning whether the additional limitation of claim 7
`
`15· ·is satisfied by KCCL?
`
`16· · · ·A.· I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
`
`17· · · ·Q.· Sure.· Well, let me back up.· The additional
`
`18· ·limitation of claim 7 is "wherein the width of the first
`
`19· ·end --" strike that.· "Wherein the width of said first
`
`20· ·end is equivalent of said second end"; correct?
`
`21· · · ·A.· Yes.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· You don't offer any opinion concerning whether
`
`23· ·KCCL discloses that or not; correct?
`
`24· · · ·A.· I believe, as I talk about in 46 and 47 and --
`
`25· ·paragraphs 46 and 47 and 48, that the configurations are
`
`24
`
`
`
`·1· ·different, and certainly the container 15 in KCCL does
`
`·2· ·not have -- the width of the first end is not equivalent
`
`·3· ·to the width of the second end.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· Where do you say that?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· I just did.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Hold on.· Where do you say it in your direct
`
`·7· ·testimony, sir?
`
`·8· · · ·A.· I don't think I used those exact words in my
`
`·9· ·direct testimony.
`
`10· · · ·Q.· Where do you use anything like those exact
`
`11· ·words?
`
`12· · · ·A.· Well, when talk about the fact that there are
`
`13· ·piercing members that need to be configured
`
`14· ·appropriately, that there's basically no -- that they're
`
`15· ·not shown in the KCCL the way they're shown as a step
`
`16· ·function in O'Donovan.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· What does that have to do with the width of the
`
`18· ·ends of the vial in KCCL?
`
`19· · · ·A.· Because it has to do with how the device is
`
`20· ·configured -- how it's designed.
`
`21· · · ·Q.· Could you please point to me to language in
`
`22· ·KCCL -- strike that.
`
`23· · · · · ·Can you please point me to language in your
`
`24· ·direct testimony where you offer the opinion that KCCL
`
`25· ·does not disclose the additional limitation of claim 7?
`
`25
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· I'm sorry, so ask the question again.
`
`·2· · · ·Q.· The additional limitation of claim 7 is
`
`·3· ·"wherein the width of said first end is equivalent to
`
`·4· ·the width of said second end"; correct?
`
`·5· · · ·A.· That's what it says, yeah.
`
`·6· · · ·Q.· Point out, please, the exact language in your
`
`·7· ·direct testimony where you think you offer an opinion
`
`·8· ·concerning whether KCCL discloses that additional
`
`·9· ·limitation.
`
`10· · · ·A.· It's not a limitation on KCCL because KCCL
`
`11· ·certainly doesn't practice the claim elements in -- or
`
`12· ·the elements in claim 1.
`
`13· · · · · ·But certainly, KCCL, the bottle does not meet
`
`14· ·that limitation.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· I'm asking you where in your direct testimony
`
`16· ·do you offer that opinion?
`
`17· · · ·A.· I don't see those exact words in my testimony.
`
`18· · · ·Q.· Where do you see any approximate words that
`
`19· ·express that opinion?
`
`20· · · ·A.· They're referenced in the --
`
`21· · · ·Q.· I'd like you to read the words, if you would.
`
`22· · · ·A.· Well, paragraph 47.· Do you want me to read it,
`
`23· ·or do you want --
`
`24· · · ·Q.· I'd like you to read the language that you
`
`25· ·think expresses that opinion.
`
`26
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· "O'Donovan Figure 4 (reproduced below)
`
`·2· ·illustrates the O'Donovan vial and lid.· Note the
`
`·3· ·shoulder (highlighted in red) at top of vial positioned
`
`·4· ·between the socket and inspection part 5.· The spikes
`
`·5· ·are positioned at the top of the shoulder of the vial.
`
`·6· ·KCCL Figure 4 is also reproduced below.· Note that
`
`·7· ·KCCL's spikes are in the lid and remain above packing --
`
`·8· ·packaging (11) and pedestal (7) so are never in the
`
`·9· ·vial."
`
`10· · · · · ·So we distinguish between the pedestal and the
`
`11· ·vial in KCCL.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· Is it your testimony that the language from
`
`13· ·paragraph 47 that you just read discloses the opinion in
`
`14· ·your direct testimony that the additional limitation of
`
`15· ·claim 7 is disclosed or is not disclosed by KCCL?
`
`16· · · ·A.· Well, that's the conclusion of it, yeah.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· Where in paragraph 47 do you say anything about
`
`18· ·the size of either end of the vial in KCCL?
`
`19· · · ·A.· Doesn't explicitly talk about them.
`
`20· · · ·Q.· Doesn't talk about them at all, does it?
`
`21· · · ·A.· No.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· The next claim on which the IPR was instituted
`
`23· ·is claim 11.
`
`24· · · · · ·Claim 11 recites, "The container system of
`
`25· ·claim 1, wherein the said piercing member extends from a
`
`27
`
`
`
`·1· ·base surface of said chamber."· Do you see that?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`·3· · · ·Q.· You offer no opinion in your direct testimony
`
`·4· ·concerning whether that additional limitation of
`
`·5· ·claim 11 is disclosed by either O'Donovan or KCCL;
`
`·6· ·correct?
`
`·7· · · ·A.· Again, my answer would be similar to the prior
`
`·8· ·dependent claims other than claim 7.
`
`·9· · · ·Q.· And the answer is that you don't discuss it
`
`10· ·explicitly but you discuss claim 1 as a representative
`
`11· ·claim; is that it?
`
`12· · · ·A.· From which this -- and from which this claim is
`
`13· ·dependent, yes.
`
`14· · · ·Q.· And claim 1 doesn't explicitly recite that
`
`15· ·limitation; correct?
`
`16· · · ·A.· That's correct.
`
`17· · · ·Q.· Claim 12 recites, "The container system of
`
`18· ·claim 11, wherein said piercing member extends
`
`19· ·approximately perpendicular from said base."· Do you see
`
`20· ·that?
`
`21· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`22· · · ·Q.· Is your answer the same for the additional
`
`23· ·limitation of claim 12 concerning whether your direct
`
`24· ·testimony discloses an opinion concerning whether that
`
`25· ·additional limitation is disclosed by either KCCL or
`
`28
`
`
`
`·1· ·O'Donovan?
`
`·2· · · ·A.· The answer is the same of all the prior ones,
`
`·3· ·with the exception of claim 7, all the prior dependent
`
`·4· ·claims with the exception of claim 7.
`
`·5· · · ·Q.· All right.· And that answer is that there is no
`
`·6· ·explicit discussion, but you talk about claim 1 as a
`
`·7· ·representative claim from which the other claims depend;
`
`·8· ·correct?
`
`·9· · · ·A.· I think that's a fair characterization, but I'm
`
`10· ·sure I didn't use those exact words.
`
`11· · · ·Q.· But there's no explicit discussion, again,
`
`12· ·that -- of that additional limitation; correct?
`
`13· · · ·A.· As I describe -- yeah, it's as I described
`
`14· ·before, in the answer I gave before.
`
`15· · · ·Q.· Claim 15 recites, "The container system of
`
`16· ·Claim 1, wherein said vial comprises a plurality of
`
`17· ·piercing members."· Do you see that?
`
`18· · · ·A.· I do.
`
`19· · · ·Q.· Again, you offer no explicit opinion concerning
`
`20· ·whether O'Donovan or KCCL discloses that additional
`
`21· ·limitation; correct?
`
`22· · · ·A.· My answer is the same to the other dependent
`
`23· ·claims other than claim 7.
`
`24· · · ·Q.· So there is no explicit discussion in your
`
`25· ·direct testimony of that additional limitation; correct?
`
`29
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·A.· Well, the discussion is I discuss claim 1 as a
`
`·2· ·representative claim from which all the dependent claims
`
`·3· ·are dependent.· So outside of that, no.
`
`·4· · · ·Q.· And there's no explicit discussion, correct, of
`
`·5· ·that additional limitation?
`
`·6· · · ·A.· Again, I discuss claim 1 as a representative
`
`·7· ·claim, and these claims are dependent upon claim 1.
`
`·8· · · ·Q.· Claim 1 does not expressly recite the
`
`·9· ·requirement that the vial comprises a plurality of
`
`10· ·piercing members; correct?
`
`11· · · ·A.· I don't believe so, no.
`
`12· · · ·Q.· All right.· Claim 16 recites, "The container
`
`13· ·system of claim 15, wherein said vial comprises two
`
`14· ·piercing members."
`
`15· · ·
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
