`· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·2· ·___________________________________________
`
`·3· ·VALVE CORPORATION,
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · Case IPR2016-00949
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2016-00948
`·5· · · · · · Petitioner,
`· · ·v.
`·6
`· · ·IRONBURG INVENTIONS, LTD.,
`·7
`· · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`·8· ·___________________________________________
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`· · · · · · · ·EXPERT TESTIMONY OF
`15
`· · · · · · · · ·DR. GLEN STEVICK
`16
`· · · · · · · · · ·March 9, 2017
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20· · · · · PRO-SYSTEMS COURT REPORTING
`· · · · · · ·4305 BRYANT AVENUE SOUTH
`21· · · · · MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55409
`· · · · · · · · · ·(612) 823-2100
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 001
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · The expert testimony of
`
`·2· ·DR. GLEN STEVICK, taken on March 9, 2017,
`
`·3· ·at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel,
`
`·4· ·Berkeley Marina, 200 Marina Boulevard,
`
`·5· ·Berkeley, California, commencing at
`
`·6· ·approximately 8:59 a.m., before
`
`·7· ·Alexis Jensen, a Registered Professional
`
`·8· ·Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and
`
`·9· ·a Notary Public in and for the State of
`
`10· ·Minnesota.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`· · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S
`14
`
`15
`· · · · · BARCELO, HARRISON & WALKER, LLP
`16· · · · By:· MR. REYNALDO C. BARCELO, P.E.
`· · · · · · · ·MR. JOSHUA C. HARRISON, PH.D.
`17· · · · 2901 West Coast Highway
`· · · · · Suite 200
`18· · · · Newport Beach, California· 92663
`· · · · · ·Phone:· 949.340.9736
`19· · · · Email:· rey@bhiplaw.com
`· · · · · · · · · josh@bhiplaw.com
`20· · · · On Behalf of Petitioner
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 002
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES (CONT'D):
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`· · · · · By:· MR. EHAB SAMUEL
`·4· · · · · · ·MR. ROBERT BECKER
`· · · · · 11355 W. Olympic Boulevard
`·5· · · · Los Angeles, California· 90064
`· · · · · Phone:· 310.312.4243
`·6· · · · Email:· esamuel@manatt.com
`· · · · · · · · · rbecker@manatt.com
`·7· · · · On Behalf of Patent Owner
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 003
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`·2· ·EXAMINATION BY· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·3· ·Dr. Harrison· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
`
`·6· ·Petitioner's Exhibit No.
`
`·7· ·1014· · ·Colored diagram, page 89
`
`·8· ·1015· · ·Shape 1, circle, page 104
`
`·9· ·1016· · ·Shape 2, page 111
`
`10· ·1017· · ·Shape 3, square, page 112
`
`11· ·1018· · ·Institution Decision, page 163
`
`12· ·1019· · ·Drawing sheet 1 of 7, page 191
`
`13
`· · ·PREVIOUSLY-MARKED EXHIBITS REFERRED TO:
`14
`· · ·Petitioner's Exhibits 1002, 1003 and 1011
`15
`· · ·Respondent's Exhibits 2002 and 2007
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 004
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2
`
`·3· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· So, this is the
`
`·4· · · ·deposition of Dr. Glen Stevick, an expert
`
`·5· · · ·witness, in IPR proceeding 2016-00949.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · I'm Joshua Harrison, and I'm
`
`·7· · · ·representing the Petitioner,
`
`·8· · · ·Valve Corporation, and if opposing counsel
`
`·9· · · ·could please introduce themselves.
`
`10· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Ehab Samuel on behalf
`
`11· · · ·of Ironburg Inventions.
`
`12· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· And I'm expecting
`
`13· · · ·Rey Barcelo to show up later in this
`
`14· · · ·deposition, and I believe that Ehab is
`
`15· · · ·expecting Robert Becker to show up later in
`
`16· · · ·this deposition as an -- as observers.
`
`17· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Can you please swear
`
`18· · · ·in the witness.
`
`19· · · · · · · · · ·DR. GLEN STEVICK,
`
`20· · · ·having been called as a witness, being duly
`
`21· · · ·sworn, testified as follows:
`
`22· · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
`
`23· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`24· ·Q.· Good morning, Dr. Stevick.
`
`25· ·A.· Good morning.
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 005
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·Q.· Can you please state your full name and
`
`·2· · · ·address for the record.
`
`·3· ·A.· Sure.· It's Glen Stevick, 808 Gilman Street,
`
`·4· · · ·Berkeley, California, 94710.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Before I question
`
`·6· · · ·the witness, I'd like to work out a
`
`·7· · · ·stipulation on the record with opposing
`
`·8· · · ·counsel about the service of exhibits that
`
`·9· · · ·arise from this deposition.
`
`10· · · · · · · · I'll try to serve opposing counsel
`
`11· · · ·with all the -- all the exhibits that I use
`
`12· · · ·today as I introduce them, but for any
`
`13· · · ·exhibits that are created or modified by the
`
`14· · · ·witness during the course of this
`
`15· · · ·deposition, I'll leave that newly-created
`
`16· · · ·and modified exhibit with the court
`
`17· · · ·reporter, in the custody of the court
`
`18· · · ·reporter, and I'd like both parties to
`
`19· · · ·stipulate that our ability to subsequently
`
`20· · · ·get a PDF copy of that newly-created or
`
`21· · · ·modified exhibit from the court reporter
`
`22· · · ·will constitute satisfactory service of that
`
`23· · · ·exhibit.
`
`24· · · · · · · · Do you stipulate?
`
`25· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· That's fine, I
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 006
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·stipulate.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Thank you.
`
`·3· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`·4· ·Q.· So, Dr. Stevick, you understand that your
`
`·5· · · ·testimony in this deposition today is under
`
`·6· · · ·oath and that oath has the same force and
`
`·7· · · ·effect as if it was in a court of law?
`
`·8· ·A.· Yes.
`
`·9· ·Q.· And when I ask you a question, you realize
`
`10· · · ·that you can ask for clarification, if you
`
`11· · · ·don't understand the question; or if you
`
`12· · · ·didn't hear it, you can ask for
`
`13· · · ·clarification.
`
`14· ·A.· Okay.
`
`15· ·Q.· You understand that?
`
`16· ·A.· Sure.
`
`17· ·Q.· Okay.· Good.· Is there any reason why you
`
`18· · · ·can't give complete and truthful testimony
`
`19· · · ·today?
`
`20· ·A.· No.
`
`21· ·Q.· Are you under any medication?
`
`22· ·A.· No.
`
`23· ·Q.· So, I'd like to review a few rules from the
`
`24· · · ·Patent and Trademark Office, just so that
`
`25· · · ·you're aware of these rules for the
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 007
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·deposition today.· These are just logistic
`
`·2· ·bookkeeping rules for how these depositions
`
`·3· ·are supposed to take place.· There is no
`
`·4· ·reason you would know these rules otherwise.
`
`·5· ·I didn't; I had to look them up.
`
`·6· · · · · · These rules are promulgated in the
`
`·7· ·Federal Register, Volume 77, Number 157,
`
`·8· ·dated 14 August 2012, and with the federal
`
`·9· ·United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`10· ·refers to as the Trial Practice Guide, or
`
`11· ·TPG.· So, I'm going to read some excerpts.
`
`12· · · · · · "Cross-examination testimony should
`
`13· ·be a question-and-answer conversation
`
`14· ·between the examining lawyer," that's me
`
`15· ·"and the witness," which is you.
`
`16· · · · · · "The defending lawyer," which is
`
`17· ·Ehab, "must not act as an intermediary
`
`18· ·interpreting questions, deciding which
`
`19· ·questions the witness should answer or
`
`20· ·helping the witness formulate answers while
`
`21· ·testifying."
`
`22· · · · · · Did you understand that?
`
`23· · · · · · That has to do with witness -- a
`
`24· ·witness being coached.· That's not
`
`25· ·permissible in the deposition.· It just has
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 008
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·to be a question-and-answer between you and
`
`·2· · · ·I.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Subject to objections,
`
`·4· · · ·of course.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Yeah, I was just
`
`·6· · · ·about to get to that.
`
`·7· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`·8· ·Q.· The Rules specifically allow -- you have to
`
`·9· · · ·object, so that the objections are noted on
`
`10· · · ·the record, but the examination still
`
`11· · · ·proceeds and testimony is taken subject to
`
`12· · · ·those objections.
`
`13· · · · · · · · So, those objections don't stop the
`
`14· · · ·testimony, unless the counsel instructs you
`
`15· · · ·not to answer.· Otherwise, the
`
`16· · · ·question-and-answer procedures goes on.
`
`17· · · · · · · · And it says:· "Counsel must not
`
`18· · · ·make objections or statements that suggest
`
`19· · · ·an answer to the witness.· Objections should
`
`20· · · ·be limited to a single word or term," and it
`
`21· · · ·gives examples of the single word.· I won't
`
`22· · · ·go into those now.· I might go into them
`
`23· · · ·later if the words aren't in the example
`
`24· · · ·list, but I won't go into them now.
`
`25· · · · · · · · It says:· "Until cross-examination
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 009
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·of the witness" -- this is an important one.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · "Until cross-examination of the
`
`·3· · · ·witness has concluded," that's today's
`
`·4· · · ·deposition, "counsel offering the witness on
`
`·5· · · ·direct examination shall not" -- that's Ehab
`
`·6· · · ·offering you -- "shall not consult and
`
`·7· · · ·confer with the witness," and that includes
`
`·8· · · ·breaks all the way up until he gets to do
`
`·9· · · ·redirect.· So, during breaks, you guys
`
`10· · · ·aren't allowed to talk about the testimony.
`
`11· · · ·That's part of the non-coaching thing.
`
`12· · · · · · · · So, is there anything about that
`
`13· · · ·that you need further explanation on or any
`
`14· · · ·questions or anything on that?
`
`15· ·A.· No.
`
`16· ·Q.· All right.· Thank you.
`
`17· · · · · · · · How much time did you spend
`
`18· · · ·preparing for the deposition today?
`
`19· ·A.· Oh, I don't know.· I -- yeah, I don't know.
`
`20· · · ·The last several days, certainly re-reading
`
`21· · · ·reports and such.
`
`22· ·Q.· Which reports?
`
`23· ·A.· My declarations, the -- all the material
`
`24· · · ·involved in the case, various pleadings.
`
`25· ·Q.· Do you know which pleadings?
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 010
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · Like, are you talking about
`
`·2· · · ·the -- when you say "pleadings," are you
`
`·3· · · ·referring to the District Court case that's
`
`·4· · · ·going on in parallel with the IPR?
`
`·5· ·A.· Well, let's see.· Why don't we just look at
`
`·6· · · ·them.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · Motions; Complaints; proposed
`
`·8· · · ·orders; the IPR documents, which -- for the
`
`·9· · · ·'770, including Exhibits 1001 to 1013;
`
`10· · · ·Papers 1 through 16; a lot of documents.
`
`11· ·Q.· What are you looking at right now?
`
`12· ·A.· The file.
`
`13· ·Q.· Did you bring notes today?
`
`14· ·A.· I brought printouts of some of it.· If I
`
`15· · · ·printed everything out, it would go from
`
`16· · · ·here back to my office.
`
`17· ·Q.· Do those have any of your handwritten notes
`
`18· · · ·on them?
`
`19· ·A.· Yeah, some of them do.
`
`20· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· All right.· Can we
`
`21· · · ·get a copy of those later, Ehab?
`
`22· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· What's the basis for
`
`23· · · ·it?
`
`24· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Well, he's a
`
`25· · · ·testifying expert, and he brought notes that
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 011
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·refreshed -- are going to refresh his
`
`·2· · · ·recollection.
`
`·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, it's not notes.
`
`·4· · · ·It's just -- there are some highlights on a
`
`·5· · · ·few sections.· It's pretty minimal, but we
`
`·6· · · ·can go over them when they come up, I
`
`·7· · · ·suppose.
`
`·8· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`·9· ·Q.· Okay.· Is it just highlighting, or are there
`
`10· · · ·actual comments that you wrote down?
`
`11· ·A.· See, I think it's mostly highlighting, but
`
`12· · · ·there may be some comments also, yeah.
`
`13· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· I think we're
`
`14· · · ·entitled to that, because he's a testifying
`
`15· · · ·expert, and he's brought that to refresh his
`
`16· · · ·recollection in his testimony.
`
`17· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Well, to the extent
`
`18· · · ·that he uses them, then perhaps, but
`
`19· · · ·we're -- we haven't gone that far to even
`
`20· · · ·cross that bridge.
`
`21· · · · · · · · Right now --
`
`22· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· He didn't just use
`
`23· · · ·them?
`
`24· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Well, no.· Right now,
`
`25· · · ·you were just asking him about a question
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 012
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·where he was looking at his -- at his pad.
`
`·2· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Go ahead.· This -- I
`
`·3· ·mean, that one probably has --
`
`·4· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Let the record show
`
`·5· ·that the witness just handed me an annotated
`
`·6· ·copy of Tosaki US Patent Number 5,989,123.
`
`·7· · · · · · I'm not going to mark it as an
`
`·8· ·exhibit yet, because I don't know if I need
`
`·9· ·to use it.
`
`10· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.· No, that's
`
`11· ·fine.
`
`12· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· This, I won't mark,
`
`13· ·but --
`
`14· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah.
`
`15· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· I don't -- perhaps
`
`16· ·it might be a good idea to put that away so
`
`17· ·that I don't need to ask for it, but it's up
`
`18· ·to you.
`
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
`
`20· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· I will give you --
`
`21· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Is that fair, can I
`
`22· ·put it away?
`
`23· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Well, I will give
`
`24· ·you any documents, you know, that I'm asking
`
`25· ·specifically about.
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 013
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· I don't mind if you
`
`·3· · · ·use this, but if you use them, I'm going to
`
`·4· · · ·ask for them.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· That's fair.
`
`·6· · · ·Then I'll just do that.
`
`·7· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`·8· ·Q.· Also, I should probably mention if --
`
`·9· ·A.· It's pretty minimal, but go ahead.
`
`10· ·Q.· Just because of the logistics of the
`
`11· · · ·deposition, we can't talk at the same time.
`
`12· · · ·It's -- the court reporter will have a
`
`13· · · ·difficulty in transcribing it.· We have to
`
`14· · · ·take turns.
`
`15· ·A.· All right.
`
`16· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· All that stuff is
`
`17· · · ·privileged work product.
`
`18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't need it
`
`19· · · ·anyway.· I mean, it's --
`
`20· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· If he uses it as
`
`21· · · ·part of his testimony today, and since he's
`
`22· · · ·a testifying witness, I do believe we're
`
`23· · · ·entitled to it.
`
`24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.
`
`25· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Okay.· So, go ahead
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 014
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·and continue on.
`
`·2· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Also, I can kind of
`
`·3· ·see that much of it, as he's putting it
`
`·4· ·away, is stuff that's already been marked as
`
`·5· ·an exhibit, which would be hard to designate
`
`·6· ·as privileged work product.
`
`·7· · · · · · I guess his comments, if he uses
`
`·8· ·them in this deposition, though, they would
`
`·9· ·be properly requested by us.
`
`10· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Feel free to use your
`
`11· ·notes.· I mean, these are your notes.
`
`12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.· If I need
`
`13· ·them, I will.
`
`14· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· I mean, don't hesitate
`
`15· ·to use them if you don't [sic] want to.
`
`16· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah.
`
`17· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· I mean, if you want
`
`18· ·to, sorry.
`
`19· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· Go ahead.
`
`20· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· So, you're going to
`
`21· ·keep those handy to --
`
`22· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.
`
`23· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· So, I will want to
`
`24· ·get a copy of those then, if he's going to
`
`25· ·refer to them during the deposition.
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 015
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· He's not --
`
`·2· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Well, he's got them
`
`·3· · · ·open right in front of him right now.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, it's just a
`
`·5· · · ·cover.· All right.· If we need them, we'll
`
`·6· · · ·pull them.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · How's that?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Let's do it that
`
`·9· · · ·way.· That way I can see when you're
`
`10· · · ·grabbing something to review --
`
`11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sure.
`
`12· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· -- and I can ask for
`
`13· · · ·it and mark it as an exhibit --
`
`14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· You bet.
`
`15· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· -- at that time.
`
`16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· You bet.
`
`17· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`18· ·Q.· All right.· Have you ever used the word
`
`19· · · ·"edge"?
`
`20· ·A.· Yes.
`
`21· ·Q.· When you use the word "edge," what do you
`
`22· · · ·understand that word to mean?
`
`23· ·A.· Well, it depends on the context.· It could
`
`24· · · ·be the boundary of something, or it could
`
`25· · · ·be -- if it's something that cuts, the
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 016
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·cutting portion.
`
`·2· ·Q.· Have you ever used the word "member"?
`
`·3· ·A.· Yes.
`
`·4· ·Q.· Is it fair to say that the word "member" is
`
`·5· · · ·frequently used by engineers when describing
`
`·6· · · ·parts of a structure?
`
`·7· ·A.· Yes.
`
`·8· ·Q.· When you use the word "member," ordinarily
`
`·9· · · ·what do you understand that word to mean?
`
`10· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Objection, calls for
`
`11· · · ·speculation.
`
`12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It really is highly
`
`13· · · ·dependent on the context, when you use the
`
`14· · · ·word "member."
`
`15· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`16· ·Q.· So, when you use the word "member," can you
`
`17· · · ·give me an example of how you would you use
`
`18· · · ·it in the context?
`
`19· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Objection, calls for
`
`20· · · ·speculation, assumes facts.
`
`21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Member of a group;
`
`22· · · ·we're all members of this deposition today.
`
`23· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`24· ·Q.· In the -- in the context of engineering, how
`
`25· · · ·would you use the word "member?"
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 017
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Objection, incomplete
`
`·2· ·hypothetical.
`
`·3· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Hold on.· You are
`
`·4· ·coaching the witness, and your objections
`
`·5· ·are absolutely improper under the
`
`·6· ·PTAB Rules.
`
`·7· · · · · · Now I will have to give you the
`
`·8· ·examples that they gave -- said were
`
`·9· ·objectionable.· For example:· "Examples of
`
`10· ·objections that would not be proper," this
`
`11· ·is straight from the PTAB Rules, "are
`
`12· ·objection, vague."
`
`13· · · · · · That is improper.· Even -- even
`
`14· ·though it's one word, because it coaches the
`
`15· ·witness.· It's expressly listed in the
`
`16· ·Federal Register as improper.
`
`17· · · · · · It said -- the only ones it gave as
`
`18· ·proper are things like form or relevance.
`
`19· ·It says:· "The difference between objections
`
`20· ·that are proper or improper is that improper
`
`21· ·objections are suggestive to the witness."
`
`22· · · · · · You know, also, the objection,
`
`23· ·lacks -- or facts not in evidence or lacks
`
`24· ·foundation is completely improper in a
`
`25· ·deposition, because no facts are in
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 018
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·evidence.
`
`·2· · · · · · So, please follow the -- the
`
`·3· ·PTAB Rules and stop giving suggestive
`
`·4· ·objections to coach the witness; or
`
`·5· ·familiarize yourself with those rules,
`
`·6· ·because if it continues, it's going to be on
`
`·7· ·the record, and it's going to -- at some
`
`·8· ·point, I'm going to have to take this up
`
`·9· ·with the PTAB.· We might as well start early
`
`10· ·in knowing the Rules.
`
`11· · · · · · Do you need a copy?· It's right
`
`12· ·here in Appendix D.· Read Appendix D.
`
`13· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· By the way, your
`
`14· ·example -- if I may now, your example about
`
`15· ·vague was not an objection that I made.
`
`16· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Yours were far
`
`17· ·more --
`
`18· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· So, your comment --
`
`19· ·your comment is completely irrelevant at
`
`20· ·this point.· That being said, if you have
`
`21· ·any issues with my objections, you can
`
`22· ·always take it to the PTAB later on, but I'm
`
`23· ·not going to stop from making objections
`
`24· ·that I think -- that I believe are
`
`25· ·appropriate in this particular circumstance.
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 019
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · Your particular question was an
`
`·2· ·incomplete hypothetical.· It was -- it
`
`·3· ·was --
`
`·4· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· You're coaching
`
`·5· ·again right now.
`
`·6· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· No, that's a proper
`
`·7· ·objection.
`
`·8· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· No, it is not.
`
`·9· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· It is a proper
`
`10· ·objection.
`
`11· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· It is not a proper
`
`12· ·objection in the PTAB.· The PTAB Rules
`
`13· ·expressly say that your objection should be
`
`14· ·one word; and also, if the objection vague
`
`15· ·is improper, then an entire explanation like
`
`16· ·incomplete hypothetical is absolutely
`
`17· ·coaching.· It's telling the witness -- if
`
`18· ·you look at the --
`
`19· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· These are rules that
`
`20· ·are -- this gives you examples of
`
`21· ·objections.· This is not the end-all
`
`22· ·objections of every list of objections that
`
`23· ·I can't say or use.
`
`24· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· I agree with that.
`
`25· ·It's just a list of examples.· It was a list
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 020
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·of examples to elucidate a rule that was
`
`·2· ·above that, which said that the difference
`
`·3· ·is, when you -- when the objection instructs
`
`·4· ·the witness of something, and I'll have the
`
`·5· ·record reflect that every time you objected,
`
`·6· ·you held up your arm in front of the witness
`
`·7· ·as if to tell him not to answer, and then
`
`·8· ·you gave a -- an objection which coached him
`
`·9· ·about what you thought was wrong with the
`
`10· ·question.
`
`11· · · · · · That is improper under the
`
`12· ·PTAB Rules.· You can't coach him what you
`
`13· ·think is wrong with the question.· All you
`
`14· ·can do is say one word like "objection."
`
`15· ·There's a -- it says:· "Counsel must not
`
`16· ·make objections or statements that suggest
`
`17· ·an answer to a witness."
`
`18· · · · · · For example, you can say:
`
`19· ·Objection foundation; objection hearsay;
`
`20· ·objection relevance.· These are not things
`
`21· ·that tell the witness, you know, what his
`
`22· ·answer should be; but on the other hand, if
`
`23· ·you say, objection, calls for speculation,
`
`24· ·he's going to say, wait a minute, that calls
`
`25· ·for speculation; maybe my answer should be
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 021
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·why don't you -- you make the question
`
`·2· ·narrower or something like that.
`
`·3· · · · · · That's coaching the witness, and
`
`·4· ·it's improper, and you need to stop.
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· No, I'm not going to
`
`·6· ·stop; and this is not -- doesn't call it out
`
`·7· ·as an improper objection, and I'll continue
`
`·8· ·using the proper objections.· You are
`
`·9· ·mischaracterizing my objections.· I am not
`
`10· ·coaching the witness.· I am stating proper
`
`11· ·objections under the Rules.
`
`12· · · · · · So, you can continue on complaining
`
`13· ·about the objections, or you can proceed
`
`14· ·with this deposition; your time.
`
`15· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Let me read you a
`
`16· ·sentence out of the Rules:· "Objections
`
`17· ·should be limited to a single word or term."
`
`18· · · · · · Do you know what a single word is?
`
`19· ·That's right in the Rules, right?· Do you
`
`20· ·understand what a single word is?
`
`21· · · · · · Make your objections a single word;
`
`22· ·make your objections proper.· Your
`
`23· ·objections were not.· You held up your hand,
`
`24· ·and you gave entire five-/six-word phrases
`
`25· ·as your objection.· I expect you to follow
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 022
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·the Rules.
`
`·2· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Did you even read --
`
`·3· ·did you even read the examples?· Some of the
`
`·4· ·examples are more than one word.
`
`·5· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Some of the examples
`
`·6· ·that it says objections that would not be
`
`·7· ·proper are more than one word.
`
`·8· · · · · · It says:· "Example" -- "Examples of
`
`·9· ·objections that would not be proper are,
`
`10· ·objection, I don't understand the question;
`
`11· ·objection, take your time answering the
`
`12· ·question; objection, look at the document
`
`13· ·before you answer."· All of those objections
`
`14· ·that are listed as examples are examples
`
`15· ·that would not be proper.
`
`16· · · · · · Now, let's look at the examples
`
`17· ·that were proper.· They're one word:
`
`18· ·Objection, form; objection, hearsay;
`
`19· ·objection, relevance; objection, foundation.
`
`20· · · · · · Please keep your objections to one
`
`21· ·word and follow the PTAB Rules in this
`
`22· ·deposition, or I will call the PTAB.· You
`
`23· ·are violating the clear rule that says it
`
`24· ·should be limited to a single word.
`
`25· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· The clear rule says
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 023
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·that it follows the Federal Rules of
`
`·2· ·Evidence, and I am following the Federal
`
`·3· ·Rules of Evidence.
`
`·4· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· So, the PTAB Federal
`
`·5· ·Register didn't know what it was talking
`
`·6· ·about when it said objections should be
`
`·7· ·limited to a single word or term?
`
`·8· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· The -- the PTAB
`
`·9· ·Federal Register says it's following the
`
`10· ·Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`11· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· So, you're willing
`
`12· ·to violate the sentence in the PTAB Rules,
`
`13· ·"objections should be limited to a single
`
`14· ·word or term."· You are going to say you're
`
`15· ·overruling that, because you think it should
`
`16· ·follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, and in
`
`17· ·every regard, even where the -- the
`
`18· ·PTAB Rules are specifically overriding the
`
`19· ·Federal Rules of Evidence?
`
`20· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· I'm going to follow
`
`21· ·the Federal Rules of Evidence.· To the
`
`22· ·extent you have a problem with that, you can
`
`23· ·bring it up to the PTAB later.
`
`24· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Where does it say,
`
`25· ·other than "consistent with the policy of
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 024
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·the Federal Rules of Evidence," and then it
`
`·2· ·gives an additional rule, limited to a
`
`·3· ·single word or term?
`
`·4· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· It says in the very
`
`·5· ·beginning:· "The examination and
`
`·6· ·cross-examination of the witness proceed as
`
`·7· ·they would in a trial under the Federal
`
`·8· ·Rules of Evidence."
`
`·9· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· They proceed as they
`
`10· ·would, yes.· In other words --
`
`11· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Okay.· So, there you
`
`12· ·are, following the Federal Rules of
`
`13· ·Evidence.
`
`14· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· The lawyer asks
`
`15· ·questions, and the witness answers.· That's
`
`16· ·proceeding as the Rules; and then one of the
`
`17· ·additional -- if you think that the
`
`18· ·Federal Register is not allowed to add rules
`
`19· ·to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`20· ·you're incorrect, and you will be found to
`
`21· ·be incorrect.
`
`22· · · · · · You're sticking your neck out here,
`
`23· ·and I'm telling you the Federal Register has
`
`24· ·a rule for these proceedings, and there are
`
`25· ·lots of things about these proceedings which
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 025
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·are different from the Federal Rules of
`
`·2· ·Civil Procedure; and one of them is:
`
`·3· ·"Counsel must not make objections to
`
`·4· ·statements that suggest an answer to a
`
`·5· ·witness.· Objections should be limited to a
`
`·6· ·single word or term."
`
`·7· · · · · · Make your objections limited to a
`
`·8· ·single word or term, or you are violating
`
`·9· ·the Federal Register Rules, which are
`
`10· ·additional to and different from the
`
`11· ·Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, just like
`
`12· ·the way exhibits are marked and the exhibit
`
`13· ·numbering system is different and a lot of
`
`14· ·other things about the IPR proceedings are
`
`15· ·different.· They're not identical, and you
`
`16· ·know it.
`
`17· · · · · · So, keep -- you -- you will follow
`
`18· ·the Rules, or we will have to call the PTAB.
`
`19· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· I will continue, as I
`
`20· ·stated, to follow the Federal Rules of
`
`21· ·Evidence, and to the extent that I'm using
`
`22· ·two words as opposed to one word, I don't
`
`23· ·think that's an issue.
`
`24· · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Good luck with that.
`
`25· · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Okay.· Thank you.
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 026
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Please proceed.
`
`·2· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Can you read back my
`
`·3· · · ·most recent question, please.
`
`·4· · · · · · · · (Read back.)
`
`·5· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Objection, incomplete
`
`·6· · · ·hypothetical.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Well, "member" is
`
`·8· · · ·usually used to describe the element or a
`
`·9· · · ·portion of something and requires additional
`
`10· · · ·explanation on the context.
`
`11· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`12· ·Q.· As one of ordinary skill in the art, do you
`
`13· · · ·consider a video game controller to be an
`
`14· · · ·electrical or an electronic device?
`
`15· ·A.· It has that in it, yes, but a lot of the
`
`16· · · ·issues here are placement of switches and
`
`17· · · ·such that are not particularly electronic,
`
`18· · · ·but they interface with electronics.
`
`19· ·Q.· Would one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`20· · · ·ordinarily consider a video game
`
`21· · · ·controller -- the entirety of a video game
`
`22· · · ·controller an electronic device?
`
`23· ·A.· An electronic control device, yes.
`
`24· ·Q.· I'd like to hand the witness an exhibit
`
`25· · · ·that's already been marked as Patent Owner
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 027
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· · · ·Ironburg's Exhibit 2002, which is the
`
`·2· · · ·Declaration of Dr. Glen Stevick in Support
`
`·3· · · ·of the Patent Owner Response in IPR
`
`·4· · · ·2016-00949.
`
`·5· · · · · · · · So, can you take a look at that and
`
`·6· · · ·tell me if you recognize what it is?
`
`·7· ·A.· Well, it's my Declaration.
`
`·8· ·Q.· Can you page through it and tell me if it
`
`·9· · · ·looks like a true copy of your Declaration?
`
`10· ·A.· Yes.
`
`11· ·Q.· If at any time during the questioning you
`
`12· · · ·think that anything's been changed about it,
`
`13· · · ·will you let me know?
`
`14· ·A.· Of course.
`
`15· ·Q.· Thank you.· And when you say "my
`
`16· · · ·Declaration," you're referring to the
`
`17· · · ·Declaration that you provided in the IPR
`
`18· · · ·proceeding 2016-00949?
`
`19· ·A.· 949, yes; for the '770 Patent, yes.
`
`20· ·Q.· On the cover page of that Declaration, the
`
`21· · · ·title of it says:· Declaration of
`
`22· · · ·Dr. Glen Stevick in Support of the Patent
`
`23· · · ·Owner Response.
`
`24· · · · · · · · What did you mean by "in support
`
`25· · · ·of"?
`
`PETITIONER VALVE CORPORATION, EX. 1022 p. 028
`IPR2016-00948 - 00949
`VALVE CORP. v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`·1· ·A.· I didn't mean anything by it to be honest
`
`·2· · · ·with you.· These are my opinions, so -- and
`
`·3· · · ·they do support the patent owner response,
`
`·4· · · ·which I've read, and probably those are, in
`
`·5· · · ·part, responsive to my opinions.
`
`·6· ·Q.· Who wrote the first draft of the
`
`·7· · · ·Declaration?
`
`·8· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Objection, privileged.
`
`·9· · · · · · · · DR. HARRISON:· Are you instructing
`
`10· · · ·the witness not to answer?
`
`11· · · · · · · · MR. SAMUEL:· Correct.
`
`12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I might add to that,
`
`13· · · ·all the content was at my direction.· All
`
`14· · · ·the opinions are mine.
`
`15· · · ·BY DR. HARRISON:
`
`16·