`
`·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· · ·