KENNETH WERNER
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`)
`)
`) Case: IPR2014-01096
`) Patent: 7,537,370
`)
`) Case: IPR2014-01097
`) Patent: 7,300,194
`
`))
`
`)
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
` Petitioner,
`VS.
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`
` ******************************************************
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`KENNETH WERNER
`JUNE 16, 2015
`VOLUME 1
` ******************************************************
`
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH WERNER,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Petitioner,
`and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
`numbered cause on the 16th of June, 2015, from 9:00 a.m.
`to 2:19 p.m., before Cinnamon Boyle, CSR in and for the
`State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the
`offices of Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite
`4500 W, Dallas, Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure.
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`VIZIO EX. 1026
`
`K.J. Pretech Ex. 1026
`
`Pretech_000940
`
`

`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`Page 4
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date is
`June 16, 2015. We are on the record at 9:00 a.m. for
`the deposition of Mr. Kenneth Werner.
` Will counsel please state their name for
`the record.
` MS. STREFF: Amanda Streff from Mayer
`Brown on behalf of the Petitioner, LG Display.
` MR. PLUTA: Robert Pluta for Mayer Brown
`on behalf of LG Display.
` MR. KLIEWER: Nick Kliewer for Bragalone
`Conroy on behalf of the patent owner, Innovative Display
`Technologies, and with me is also Bill Kennedy.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, please state
`any agreements for the record.
` MR. PLUTA: I don't believe there are
`any --
` MS. STREFF: Not any.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Court Reporter, please
`swear in the witness.
` KENNETH WERNER,
`having been first duly sworn testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MS. STREFF:
` Q. Mr. Werner, can you please state your full
`Page 5
`
`name and address for the record?
` A. Kenneth Werner, 2 Shadybrook Lane, Norwalk,
`Connecticut.
` Q. And, Mr. Werner, I just introduced myself,
`but, again, I'm Amanda Streff, and I represent LG
`Display, and I'll being asking you a number of questions
`today.
` I think we all know you've been deposed a
`few times on matters related to these patents, so I -- I
`understand you know the procedures, but I'll just go
`over a few -- few things just so we're on the same page,
`okay?
` A. Sure.
` Q. Because there's a court reporter here, you'll
`need to give oral responses -- do you understand that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And if you answer a question, I'll assume you
`understood it as ask- -- asked; is that fair?
` A. That is fair.
` Q. And if at any point you need to take a break,
`all I ask is that we make sure there's not a question
`pending, and then we can take a break, okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. And you've taken an oath today that binds you
`to give truthful testimony. Is there any reason you
`
`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
`
`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
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` AMANDA K. STREFF
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
` (312) 451-8200
` astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
` ROBERT G. PLUTA
` MAYER BROWN LLP
` 71 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
` (312) 451-8200
` rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`ALSO PRESENT:
`23 MEHDI BRAILEY - VIDEOGRAPHER
`24
`25
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` NICHOLAS C. KLIEWER
` BRAGALONE CONROY PC
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` (214) 785-6686
` nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
` T. WILLIAM KENNEDY
` BRAGALONE CONROY PC
` Chase Tower
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4500 W
` Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
` (214) 785-6674
` bkennedy@bcpc-law.com
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
`
` PAGE
`Appearances ....................................... 2
`
`KENNETH WERNER
`Examination By MS. STREFF ......................... 4
`
`Signature and Changes ............................. 124
`Reporter's Certificate ............................ 126
`
` EXHIBITS
`NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`1026 Exhibit 2006 and Patent Owner Response 21
` Side-by-Side Comparison of Selected
` Paragraphs
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000941
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 6
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`Page 8
`
`1
`cannot give truthful testimony today?
`2
` A. There is no reason.
`3
` Q. I'd like to start by going over how you
`4
`prepared for your deposition --
`5
` A. Um-hmm.
`6
` Q. -- did you meet with anyone to prepare for
`7
`your deposition today?
`8
` A. Yes. Mr. Kliewer and Mr. Kennedy.
`9
` Q. And when did you meet with Mr. Kliewer and
`10 Mr. Kennedy?
`11
` A. Yesterday.
`12
` Q. How long did you meet for?
`13
` A. Probably about eight hours.
`14
` Q. Did you -- other than meeting with counsel for
`15
`eight hours yesterday, did you do anything else to
`16
`prepare for your deposition?
`17
` A. Yes. I looked at relevant -- at the relevant
`18
`documents.
`19
` Q. And when you say "relevant documents," what
`20
`would those documents be?
`21
` A. The -- the patents that are the subject of --
`22
`of this procedure, the alleged prior art, the -- the
`23
`report of Mr. Escuti and similar documents, I guess I
`24
`should say.
`25
` Q. And did -- did you do that for both the -- the
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And after that, you got your master's in
`physics from UNC in 1970?
` A. That is correct also.
` Q. And your focus at UNC was on experimental
`solid state physics, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In 1968, you joined RCA solid state division,
`correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And at RCA, your job was to design bipolar
`power semiconductor devices and to transfer those
`designs into the factory?
` A. That is also correct.
` Q. And you weren't involved in designing the late
`transmission and emission for display applications at
`RCA, correct?
` A. No, that is not true.
` Q. It's not true?
` A. Not true.
` Q. What -- what is true? What's not true about
`that question?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. Repeat the question.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) You weren't involved in
`Page 9
`1
`designing the late transmission and emission for --
`2
` A. I'm sorry, was that -- was that you were or
`3
`were not --
`4
` Q. Sorry. Let -- let me finish first, so --
`5
` A. Okay.
`6
` Q. -- we talk over each other, the court reporter
`7
`can't get it --
`8
` A. I understand that, surely.
`9
` Q. You weren't involved in designing the light
`10
`transmission and emission for display applications,
`11
`correct?
`12
` A. Okay. I -- I just want to emphasize you're
`13
`saying I -- I was not.
`14
` Q. Correct.
`15
` A. That is correct, I was not.
`16
` Q. And you were not involved in the testing of
`17
`light transmission and emission for display
`18
`applications, right?
`19
` A. That is correct.
`20
` Q. And you weren't involved in analyzing any
`21
`light transmission and emission for display
`22
`applications?
`23
` A. That is correct.
`24
` Q. You didn't work with or design any back-light
`25
`units at RCA, correct --
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`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
`
`194 and the 370 IPR?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you -- did you review anything else in
`preparation for your deposition?
` A. I reviewed all the documents in the Appendix B
`in my declaration. I -- I referred to an online
`textbook of engineering drawing, which is mentioned
`within my declaration.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. Nothing that comes to mind at the moment, but,
`you know, there -- there may very well have been other
`things.
` Q. Have you spoken with anyone else regarding
`your deposition?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. And the documents you just mentioned, when did
`you review those?
` A. Over the last few weeks.
` Q. Other than reviewing documents and meeting
`with your two attorneys, was there anything else you did
`to prepare for your deposition?
` A. Not that I can recall.
` Q. I'd like to turn now to your educational and
`employment background. You received your bachelor's
`from Rutgers in physics in 1966, correct?
`
`Pretech_000942
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 10
`
` A. I did not.
` Q. You also didn't work with any -- work with or
`design any liquid crystal displays at RCA?
` A. I'm hesitating because I was involved in a
`meeting to evaluate an early liquid crystal display
`technology. But other than that, the answer is, no, I
`was not involved.
` Q. What meeting are you referring to?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. It was a -- a half-day meeting at which we, at
`the solid state division, were being asked by members of
`-- of RCA laboratories, or it was Sarnoff laboratories,
`to evaluate an early liquid crystal display that they
`had developed to see if we wished to take it on as a --
`as a commercial -- project.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And did your involvement in
`that meeting involve the design of liquid crystal
`displays?
` A. No. It involved the analysis of their
`prototype.
` Q. In 1971, you left RCA and became a science
`editor of Choice magazine, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And you were an editor there from 1971 to
`1975?
`
`Page 11
` A. That is approximately correct. If it says
`that in my resume, then it's correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor at Choice magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units?
` A. That --
` Q. Correct --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. It did not.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Okay. From 1975 to 1979, you
`were a science editor of Cambridge University Press?
` A. Again, if -- if those are the dates that it
`says there, that is correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor for that magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, right?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 1979 to 1981, you were a medical
`acquisitions editor at Medical Examination Publishing
`Company; is that correct?
` A. Again, I will trust you on the dates and, yes,
`that's correct.
` Q. And your role as an editor at that company did
`not involve the design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, correct?
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`Page 12
`
`1
` A. That is correct.
`2
` Q. In 1982, you were at Academic Press; is that
`3
`right?
`4
` A. Yes.
`5
` Q. And your job there also did not involve design
`6
`or engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`7
`units, right?
`8
` A. That is correct.
`9
` Q. From 1982 to 1985, you were at Macmillan
`10
`Publishing Company; is that right?
`11
` A. That is correct.
`12
` Q. And is it true that that job also did not
`13
`involve design or engineering of liquid crystal displays
`14
`or back-light units?
`15
` A. That is correct.
`16
` Q. From 1985 to 1986, you were at IEEE Spectrum
`17 magazine; is that right?
`18
` A. That is correct.
`19
` Q. And that job did not involve design or
`20
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`21
`units, right?
`22
` A. That is correct.
`23
` Q. From 1986 to 1987, you were at IEEE Spectrum
`24 magazine as a managing editor, right?
`25
` A. Again, I have to trust you on the dates, but
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`other than that, that is correct.
` Q. And that role did not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Then from 1987 to 2005, you were an editor of
`Information Display?
` A. Yes, Information Display magazine, that is
`correct.
` Q. And your role at Information Display magazine
`did not involve design or engineering of liquid crystal
`displays or back-light units, correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. In 2006, you worked at Insight Media; is that
`right?
` A. Again, I have to trust you on the date, but I
`did work at Insight Media.
` Q. And your role at Insight Media did not involve
`design or engineering of liquid crystal displays or
`back-light units, right --
` A. That is correct.
` Q. From 2005 to 2014, you were the senior analyst
`and editor of Insight Media; is that correct?
` A. Again, I'll have to trust you on -- on the
`dates, but, yes, that's true.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000943
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 14
`1
` Q. And your role as the senior analyst and editor
`2
`of Insight Media also did not involve design or
`3
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`4
`units?
`5
` A. That is correct.
`6
` Q. From 2014 to today, you're the senior analyst
`7
`and editor for Meko Limited; is that correct?
`8
` A. In regard to one of their publications, yes.
`9
` Q. And which publication is that?
`10
` A. Display Daily.
`11
` Q. And you -- are you -- what's your position at
`12
`Display Daily?
`13
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
`14
` A. My position is senior editor and -- or -- I
`15
`forget what it said there, senior analyst and editor.
`16
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And your role as senior
`17
`analyst and editor at Display Daily does not involve
`18
`design or engineering of liquid crystal displays or
`19
`back-light units?
`20
` A. That is correct.
`21
` Q. The -- and you're currently the director of
`22 marketing at Tannas Electric Displays?
`23
` A. I was director of marketing there until April
`24
`30th.
`25
` Q. And your job there did not involve the design
`Page 15
`or engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. What -- what are you currently doing? What's
`your current employment?
` A. I am --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. -- a Senior analyst at -- and editor at
`Display Daily for Meko Limited, contributing editor to
`HDTV.com -- HD -- HDTVExpert.com and -- and I'll stop
`there.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Your role as contributing
`editor at HDTV.com does not involve design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units; is that correct?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. That is correct.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And your role as principal of
`Nutmeg Consultants does not involve the design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units; is that correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So since your time at RCA, which ended in
`1971, you have not performed any design work for light
`emitting applications; is that correct?
`
`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
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`Page 16
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I have not performed design work. I have
`analyzed designs to evaluate them, but, no, I have not
`done the design work myself.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) All right. So since RCA in
`1971, you have not been involved in the design or
`engineering of liquid crystal displays or back-light
`units, correct?
` A. If you mean -- involved in, you mean do --
`have I done the primary design and engineering myself,
`the answer is, no, I have not.
` Q. Okay. So since 1971, you have not done a --
`done any hands-on design or engineering of liquid
`crystal displays or back-light units; is that correct --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection -- objection,
`form.
` A. Yes, that is correct.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) I'd like to switch to your
`declaration in the 194 IPR --
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. Mr. Werner, I'm going to hand you what was
`previously marked as Exhibit 2006.
` Mr. Werner, did you draft your 194
`declaration?
` A. I drafted it collaboratively with -- with
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kliewer.
`2
` Q. What percent would you say you drafted?
`3
` A. I can't say offhand. There were multiple
`4
`drafts and multiple conversations. I was an active
`5
`participant in the drafting.
`6
` Q. Would you say you drafted more than 50
`7
`percent --
`8
` A. I --
`9
` Q. -- of the declaration?
`10
` A. I can't say.
`11
` Q. When did you start working on your
`12
`declaration?
`13
` A. I can only estimate that it was several weeks
`14
`ago.
`15
` Q. Do you recall how many weeks before you
`16
`submitted this declaration you started working on it?
`17
` A. A -- again, I can --
`18
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
`19
` A. I can only estimate roughly several weeks.
`20
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And can you describe for me
`21
`the -- the process you went about in preparing your
`22
`declaration?
`23
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
`24
` A. A -- a general draft was -- was given to me by
`25 Mr. Kliewer. I commented on the contents, marked it up,
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000944
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Page 18
`added text, told Mr. Kliewer, you know, if there's
`anything in -- in there that did not -- was not
`consistent with my understanding of the technology and
`we -- we went back and forth in -- in that way for a
`while.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Was there anything that you
`found in the draft that was not consistent with your
`understanding of the technology?
` MR. KLIEWER: Let me warn the witness
`right now --
` THE WITNESS: Um-hmm.
` MR. KLIEWER: -- to avoid any privileged
`conversations, of talking about any privileged
`conversations.
` A. Okay. So I -- I -- I assume that that is --
`is privileged and, therefore, I will not answer.
` MR. KLIEWER: I -- I'm just -- I'm just
`warning you if -- that the -- that -- not to -- not to
`talk about privileged conversations, but if you repeat
`the question, I think that probably -- you could
`probably answer that question.
` THE WITNESS: Oh.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) So, Mr. Werner, my question
`was: Was there anything that you found in the draft
`that was not consistent with your understanding of the
`Page 19
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`Page 20
`because of my rejections -- over my objections.
` Q. Do you recall what area of the technology you
`saw in your declaration that was inconsistent with your
`understanding?
` A. I can only say it was -- you know, it -- it
`involved the general -- the general topic of the
`declaration, but, you know, at least in one case the
`offending -- you know, passage was -- was remove --
`removed, and other instances, they were adjusted to --
`to reflect my understanding of the technology. But I --
`but I can't remember specifically what they were.
` Q. Do you recall what was adjusted to reflect
`your understanding of the technology?
` A. I cannot remember specifically what that
`was.
` Q. Are there any paragraphs in your declaration
`that you drafted entirely yourself?
` A. I believe there are.
` Q. Which paragraphs are those?
` A. I could -- could not go to them right now.
`I'd have to read the entire -- the entire declaration to
`locate them.
` Q. Did you receive a copy of the patent owner
`response?
` A. Yes, I did.
`
`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
`
`technology?
` A. There was, yes.
` Q. And did you point that out to your
`attorneys?
` A. I did.
` Q. And what -- what was not consistent with your
`understanding of the technology?
` A. I believe that would be privileged.
` Q. The -- the current draft of your declaration,
`is it consistent with your understanding of the
`technology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What -- what concept was not consistent with
`your understanding of the technology in your
`declaration?
` A. I believe that would be privileged.
` Q. It --
` (Sotto voce discussion)
` MS. STREFF: Yeah.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Mr. Werner, your attorney
`hasn't instructed you not to answer, and so you need to
`answer my questions as asked.
` A. Okay. I can honestly say that because there
`was so much back and forth I don't remember specifically
`what -- what the points were that were -- were revised
`
`Page 21
`1
` Q. When did you receive a copy of the patent
`2
`owner response?
`3
` A. I think I saw it for the -- for the first time
`4
`yesterday.
`5
` Q. And prior to yesterday, you had not seen a --
`6
`a draft of the patent owner response?
`7
` A. Not that I can recall.
`8
` Q. Mr. Werner, I'm going to hand you a copy of
`9
`the patent owner response, which is Paper No. 19 --
`10
` A. Um-hmm.
`11
` Q. -- and the 194 IPR.
`12
` A. Okay.
`13
` Q. Now, if you could turn to page 8 --
`14
` A. Um-hmm.
`15
` Q. -- patent owner response. And look at the
`16
`bottom of page 8.
`17
` A. Yes.
`18
` Q. And you could also turn to Paragraph 41 of
`19
`your declaration.
`20
` A. Um-hmm. Yes.
`21
` MS. STREFF: If you could mark this as
`22
`Exhibit 1026.
`23
` THE REPORTER: 10, what --
`24
` MS. STREFF: 1026.
`25
` (Exhibit 1026 marked)
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000945
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 22
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And, Mr. Werner, I'm handing
`you what has been marked as Exhibit 1026 in the 194 IPR,
`which you could use in aiding your answer to these
`questions, or you have both the patent owner response
`and your declaration in front of you.
` A. Okay. Now -- now, this document you've just
`given me, I've -- I have not seen before. Can you tell
`me what it is?
` Q. Yes. Exhibit 1026 is a side-by-side
`comparison of paragraphs from your 194 declaration,
`Exhibit 2006, and paragraphs from the patent owner
`response.
` A. Okay.
` MR. KLIEWER: I'm going to object to this
`as not being best evidence.
` MS. STREFF: Okay.
` MR. KLIEWER: We -- we've got -- you've
`got both -- admitted into evidence, the -- the patent
`owner's response and the -- and his declaration.
` MS. STREFF: Okay. I'm still going to
`ask him questions on it, but you've noted your objection
`for the record.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) So Mr. Werner, if you could --
`either looking at the patent owner response with the
`declaration or the exhibit I've handed you, starting
`Page 23
`
`with Paragraph 40 of your declaration?
` A. Forty?
` Q. Paragraph 40, and page 8 of the patent owner
`response.
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. Other than citations to your declaration and
`the patent owner response, would you agree with me that
`those paragraphs are identical?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. Without reading them word for word, I can't
`say they're identical or not. I can say they appear to
`be very similar.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Why don't you read Paragraph
`40 from your declaration and --
` A. And the --
` Q. -- the first full -- first full paragraph on
`page 8 of the patent owner response --
` A. Okay. (Witness reviews).
` Q. Have you had a chance to read both
`paragraphs?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. And would you agree with me that they are
`substantively identical?
` A. I would --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`Page 24
` A. I don't know what substantively identical
`means. I would say that -- that much of it is
`identical, although there are some variations of words
`and phrases.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Where is there a variation of
`words and phrases?
` A. Oh, okay. I'll have to go back over that
`again. (Witness reviews).
` In the sentence beginning: "This
`limitation is required by Independent Claim 1," and that
`would be -- one, two, three, four, five, six,
`seven -- eight lines down on the patent owner's
`response.
` Then the next line begins: "Claim 28
`recites," and the next sentence in my declaration says,
`"Likewise, the position does not show." So it -- it is
`that kind of -- of variation that -- that I -- that I
`referred to. The para- -- the paragraphs are extremely
`similar.
` Q. If you would turn to the second page in that
`exhibit or Paragraph 41 of your declaration and the
`paragraph starting on the bottom of page 8 of the patent
`owner response.
` A. Um-hmm.
` Q. And compare those paragraphs for me.
`Page 25
`
` A. Okay. (Witness reviews).
` And other than references, these -- these
`paragraphs are identical as best I can tell.
` Q. All right. So you would agree with me that
`other than this citation to your declaration in the
`patent owner response, Paragraph 41 of your declaration
`is identical to the paragraph starting on the bottom of
`page 8 of the patent owner response?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I would agree.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) If you could now turn to
`either page 3 of Exhibit 1026 or Paragraph 42 of your
`declaration and compare Paragraph 42 of your declaration
`with the paragraph starting on the top of page 9 of the
`patent owner response.
` A. (Witness reviews).
` Yes. And the question was?
` Q. Would you agree with me that other than the
`citation to your declaration in the patent owner
`response, the paragraph appearing on the top of page 9
`is identical to Paragraph 42 of your declaration?
` A. I would agree.
` Q. If you'll move down to the next paragraph on
`page 9 and Paragraph 43 of your declaration, and this is
`also page 4 of Exhibit 1026, and compare those
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000946
`
`

`
`KENNETH WERNER
`
`Page 26
`paragraphs -- or sorry, it's still page 3 of Exhibit
`1026. Compare those paragraphs for me, please.
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. (Witness reviews).
` I --
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Have you finished reviewing
`those two paragraphs?
` A. I have.
` Q. And would you agree with me that other than
`citations to your declaration in the patent owner
`response, paragraph appearing on page 9 is identical to
`Paragraph 43 of your declaration?
` A. I would agree.
` Q. Would it surprise you to learn that the prior
`art analysis section of the patent owner response is
`identical? Other than citations to your declaration,
`it's identical to your declaration?
` A. Well, we've already seen one instance where it
`was not identical, just very similar, but it would not
`surprise to me to know that -- that the two are very
`similar.
` Q. Did you draft the patent owner response?
` A. I did not.
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, asked and
`answered.
`
`Page 27
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Did -- did the lawyers draft
`your declaration then?
` A. The declaration was a collaborative effort
`between the lawyers and myself.
` Q. So was the patent owner response a
`collaborative effort between you and the lawyers?
` A. I was not involved in the drafting of the --
`of the patent owner response.
` Q. What analysis did you perform in preparing
`your declaration?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I believe I've already answered that I looked
`at the documents in -- in the -- in Appendix B and also
`the -- the online textbook of -- of mechanical drawing
`that I mentioned within the declaration.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) And what were you asked to --
`to do for your declaration in this case?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. The -- the declaration is in -- intended to --
`to counter the -- the assertions of Dr. Escuti regarding
`the instituted claims.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Did you review the 194
`petition?
` A. I did review the 194 petition.
` Q. Were you asked to provide opinions on 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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`Page 28
`sufficiency of the disclosure in the petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. I cannot recall that.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) What's your understanding of
`what's required in an IPR petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection, form.
` A. The -- the scope of what I was asked to do
`here was to counter the assertions of Dr. Escuti.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Okay. So you weren't asked to
`counter the assertions in the petition?
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection. Counsel, I'm
`going to ask you not to -- you're getting awful close to
`privileged conversation, so I'm -- remind the witness
`not to -- not violate privilege.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) You can answer. You want me
`to repeat the question?
` A. Yes, please.
` Q. You weren't asked to counter the assertions in
`the petition, correct?
` MR. KLIEWER: And I'm going to instruct
`the witness not to answer that question on the basis of
`privilege.
` MS. STREFF: You know, Counsel, under the
`Federal Rule, I am allowed to ask him the assumptions he
`was asked to make and the facts he was asked to consider
`Page 29
`
`in preparing his declaration.
` MR. KLIEWER: That wasn't the question
`you answered -- that you asked.
` (Sotto voce discussion)
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) What were you asked to do
`for --
` MR. KLIEWER: Objection.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) -- these IPR proceedings?
` (Sotto voce discussion)
` A. I was asked --
` MR. KLIEWER: Object -- Mr. Werner, the
`-- and I'm going to instruct you not to answer that
`question on -- based on privilege.
` Q. (BY MS. STREFF) Mr. Werner, what was -- what's
`your role in these IPR proceedings?
` A. My role is to analyze the -- the declaration
`of Dr. Escuti and, where -- where justified, to counter
`his assertions regarding the instituted claims.
` Q. And does your role involve anything else,
`other than countering the opinions of Dr. Escuti?
` A. As appropriate and justified by the -- you
`know, by the technology and the -- and -- and the
`patents. That was my role for this hearing.
` Q. I'm going to switch focus to the 194 patent
`generally. You're familiar -- Mr. Werner, I'm handing
`
`HG LITIGATION SERVICES
`HGLITIGATION.COM
`
`Pretech_000947
`
`

`
`KENN