Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED
` Petitioner,
` v.
` GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
` Patent Owner
` __________
` Case IPR2016-01264/2016-01249
` U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
` __________
` Reston, Virginia
` May 5, 2017
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
` HARLAN R. HARRIS, Ph.D.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 254
`
`TSMC Exhibit 1036
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01249
`
`
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LIMITED
` Petitioner,
` v.
` GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
` Patent Owner
` __________
` Case IPR2016-01264/2016-01249
` U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
` __________
` Reston, Virginia
` May 5, 2017
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
` HARLAN R. HARRIS, Ph.D.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 254
`
`TSMC Exhibit 1036
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01249
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`2
`
` Cross-Examination of HARLAN R. HARRIS,
`Ph.D., a witness herein, called for examination by
`counsel for Petitioner in the above-entitled matter,
`pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by
`SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, CRR, RPR, a Notary Public in and
`for the Commonwealth of Virginia, taken at the
`offices of Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C., 1950
`Roland Clarke Place, Reston, Virginia, commencing at
`9:05 a.m.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`3
`
`APPEARANCES:
` On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` MICHAEL J. FINK, ESQUIRE
` Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
` 1950 Roland Clarke Place
` Reston, Virginia 20191-1411
` (703) 616-1191
` mfink@gbpatent.com
` On behalf of the Petitioner:
` STEPHEN E. KABAKOFF, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` 271 117th Street, N.W.
` Suite 1400
` Atlanta, Georgia 30363-6209
` (404) 653-6400
` stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com
` -and-
` HOWARD HERR, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C.
` (202) 408-4000
` howard.herr@finnegan.com
` ALSO PRESENT:
` Willy Chang, Senior Counsel,
` Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
` Company, Limited
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`HARLAN R. HARRIS, Ph.D. EXAMINATION
` By Mr. Kabakoff 6
` By Mr. Fink 248
`
` Afternoon Session - Page 144
`
` E X H I B I T S
`EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
`Exhibit 1025 (TSMC) UK Patent 2,298,657 B 17
`Exhibit 1026 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 5,780,908 17
`Exhibit 1027 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 5,869,902 18
`Exhibit 1028 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 5,882,399 19
`Exhibit 1029 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 6,057,237 19
`Exhibit 1030 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 6,136,682 20
`Exhibit 1031 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 6,242,804 B1 20
`Exhibit 1032 (TSMC) Fig. 4 53
`Exhibit 1033 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 6,458,255 B2 136
`Exhibit 1034 (TSMC) American Heritage College
` Dictionary Third Edition excerpt 152
`Exhibit 1035 (TSMC) U.S. Patent 5,281,485 228
`(Exhibits Continued)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`5
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS PAGE
`Exhibit 2011 Declaration of Harlan Rusty
` Harris, Ph.D. 01249, 01264 7
`Exhibit 2037 Declaration of Harlan Rusty
` Harris, Ph.D. in Support of
` Patent Owner's Contingent
` Motion to Amend 01249, 01264 7
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent 6,887,353 B1 7
`Exhibit 1007 Sun 7
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent 5,893,752 25
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,538,324 29
`Exhibit 2010 Chemistry 181
`Exhibit 2036 Hackh's Chemical Dictionary 185
`Exhibit 1002 File History US 6,538,324 192
`Exhibit 1015 Sun 201
`Exhibit 2039 U.S. Patent 6,346,745 B1 212
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`08:54:07
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:04:55
`
`09:04:57
`
`09:04:57
`
`09:04:57
`
`09:05:02
`
`09:05:02
`
`09:05:06
`
`09:05:07
`
`09:05:13
`
`09:05:17
`
`09:05:18
`
`09:05:20
`
`09:05:22
`
`09:05:25
`
`09:05:28
`
`09:05:32
`
`09:05:34
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`6
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Whereupon,
` HARLAN R. HARRIS, Ph.D.
`was called as a witness by counsel for Petitioner,
`and having been duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Good morning.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Can you please state your full name and
`address for the record?
` A. Harlan Rusty Harris. I reside at 1315
`Harbour Town Court, College Station, Texas 77845.
` Q. Have you ever been deposed before?
` A. This is my first deposition.
` Q. Well, as you can see, we have a court
`reporter. And one thing that I just want to make
`you aware of early is she is writing down everything
`you say, so when I ask a question, please wait until
`I finish the question before you start to answer.
`If we talk at the same time, it makes her job very
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:05:38
`
`09:05:39
`
`09:05:39
`
`09:05:42
`
`09:05:46
`
`09:05:49
`
`09:05:50
`
`09:05:53
`
`09:05:55
`
`09:05:55
`
`09:05:57
`
`09:05:59
`
`09:06:02
`
`09:06:02
`
`09:06:05
`
`09:06:07
`
`09:06:07
`
`09:06:11
`
`09:06:13
`
`09:06:16
`
`09:06:16
`
`09:06:31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`7
`
`difficult.
` A. Sure.
` Q. And also try to keep your voice up, so
`she can hear you, for writing down the transcript.
` A. Very well.
` MR. FINK: And no nodding or shaking
`heads. You have to answer verbally.
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Thank you. You understand that you're
`under oath, and you must testify truthfully as if
`you're in a courtroom in front of a judge?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is there any reason that would prevent
`you from testifying truthfully today?
` A. No.
` Q. It looks like you didn't bring anything,
`so I'm going to give you copies of your declarations
`in the two IPR proceedings that we are discussing
`today.
` A. Sure.
` (IP Bridge Exhibit Nos. 2011, 2037
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:06:34
`
`09:06:34
`
`09:06:35
`
`09:06:37
`
`09:06:49
`
`09:07:23
`
`09:07:28
`
`09:07:36
`
`09:07:43
`
`09:07:44
`
`09:07:47
`
`09:07:50
`
`09:07:53
`
`09:07:54
`
`09:08:00
`
`09:08:01
`
`09:08:02
`
`09:08:07
`
`09:08:09
`
`09:08:12
`
`09:08:14
`
`09:08:16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`8
`
` were marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. I'll represent to you, I obtained these
`from the patent file website. Let me hand them to
`you first. So I've handed you four declarations.
`Two of them are labelled IP Bridge Exhibit 2011, and
`they were filed in IPR proceedings IPR2016-01264 and
`IPR2016-01249. Do you have those?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And I handed you two declarations from
`those same proceedings that are labelled IP Bridge
`Exhibit 2037. Do you have those?
` A. I do.
` Q. And you did not submit any other
`declarations in these proceedings, correct?
` A. I did not.
` Q. When is the last time that you read each
`of your declarations that I just handed to you?
` A. In its entirety? Or --
` Q. In its entirety.
` A. It was yesterday afternoon.
` Q. Since you asked me, "in its entirety,"
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:08:23
`
`09:08:26
`
`09:08:28
`
`09:08:35
`
`09:08:48
`
`09:08:54
`
`09:08:55
`
`09:08:57
`
`09:08:58
`
`09:09:00
`
`09:09:06
`
`09:09:06
`
`09:09:07
`
`09:09:08
`
`09:09:12
`
`09:09:16
`
`09:09:19
`
`09:09:19
`
`09:09:23
`
`09:09:26
`
`09:09:28
`
`09:09:29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`9
`did you read portions of it again this morning? Is
`that why you asked me that?
` A. I did not. I just wanted to clarify.
` Q. Can I refer to Exhibit 2011 from the
`IPR2016-01264 proceeding as your 1264 declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You'll understand what I'm referring to?
` A. I will.
` Q. Can I refer to the other declaration
`that's labelled 2011 as your 1249 declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you'll understand that?
` A. I will understand it.
` Q. The two declarations that were labelled
`Exhibit 2037 that are exactly the same length, and
`to my knowledge, they are the same. Is that
`correct?
` A. I haven't examined these documents, but
`they look like copies of each other, so I would say
`on the face of it, yes.
` MR. FINK: Steve, I'll represent,
`according to what the Board told us, they had to be
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:09:32
`
`09:09:35
`
`09:09:35
`
`09:09:38
`
`09:09:39
`
`09:09:40
`
`09:09:43
`
`09:09:43
`
`09:09:46
`
`09:09:48
`
`09:09:50
`
`09:09:54
`
`09:09:58
`
`09:10:01
`
`09:10:36
`
`09:10:43
`
`09:10:47
`
`09:10:48
`
`09:10:53
`
`09:10:56
`
`09:10:58
`
`09:11:00
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`10
`
`the same document.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Can I refer to Exhibit 2037 as your
`motion to amend declaration?
` A. I will understand that.
` Q. So we can have shorter versions.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are there any errors that you'd like to
`correct in any of these declarations I handed you?
` A. I'm glad you brought that up. I
`appreciate that. There is a typo on the 1264.
` Q. Are you able to locate it relatively
`quickly, or do you want to take a break to find it?
` A. I think I can probably find it real fast.
`On page 61, in paragraph 233, the underlined portion
`in that paragraph, there was a double negative
`which, of course, came about during the review
`process. And it states that I do not disagree with
`the Petitioner as to what those results would have
`been. Of course, it should not have been a double
`negative. It should have said that I disagree with
`the Petitioner.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:11:01
`
`09:11:03
`
`09:11:05
`
`09:11:08
`
`09:11:10
`
`09:11:15
`
`09:11:19
`
`09:11:21
`
`09:11:22
`
`09:11:23
`
`09:11:27
`
`09:11:30
`
`09:11:31
`
`09:11:32
`
`09:11:36
`
`09:11:41
`
`09:11:44
`
`09:11:44
`
`09:11:47
`
`09:11:49
`
`09:11:49
`
`09:11:52
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`11
` Q. So you do not agree with the Petitioner?
` A. I do not, yes.
` Q. Any other errors that you're aware of?
` A. Not at this point.
` Q. Are there any opinions that you rendered
`in any of the four declarations I handed you that,
`upon further consideration, you just want to
`withdraw?
` A. There are none.
` Q. Are you offering any expert opinions in
`these IPR proceedings that are not expressed in your
`declarations?
` A. I am not.
` Q. Have you previously submitted any
`declarations or expert reports relating to the U.S.
`Patent 6,538,324?
` A. I have not.
` Q. And for simplicity, can I refer to this
`as the '324 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Will you be offering any opinions about
`the validity of the '324 patent in the related
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:11:55
`
`09:11:56
`
`09:12:06
`
`09:12:10
`
`09:12:10
`
`09:12:13
`
`09:12:16
`
`09:12:19
`
`09:12:21
`
`09:12:21
`
`09:12:24
`
`09:12:44
`
`09:12:45
`
`09:12:45
`
`09:12:47
`
`09:12:52
`
`09:12:54
`
`09:12:54
`
`09:12:57
`
`09:12:58
`
`09:13:00
`
`09:13:01
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`12
`
`District Court litigation?
` A. No, I'm not involved in the litigation.
` MR. FINK: Objection, lack of foundation.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Let's use your 1264 declaration as the
`primary declaration, so I'll refer to paragraphs in
`this. And if I want to direct you to the other
`ones, I'll let you know.
` A. Very well.
` Q. What I'd like you to do is turn to
`paragraphs 11 to 15 of your 1264 declaration. It's
`on page 3?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Again, for simplicity, there are two
`different page numbers. It says page 3, but then
`underneath, it says, 483?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Can I just refer to the page number
`that's marked above?
` A. That would be preferable for me, yes.
` Q. So you see the heading, Documents
`Reviewed?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:13:02
`
`09:13:02
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:06
`
`09:13:07
`
`09:13:15
`
`09:13:24
`
`09:13:25
`
`09:13:28
`
`09:13:30
`
`09:13:31
`
`09:13:35
`
`09:13:37
`
`09:13:40
`
`09:13:41
`
`09:13:44
`
`09:13:47
`
`09:13:51
`
`09:13:52
`
`09:13:54
`
`09:13:56
`
`09:13:56
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`13
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And under that is paragraphs 11 to 15,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Which spans to page 7 of the 1264
`declaration. Do paragraphs 11 to 15 of your 1264
`declaration accurately reflect all of the documents
`that you reviewed in forming your opinions in the
`1264 declaration?
` A. They do, yes.
` Q. In forming your opinions in your 1264
`declaration, did you rely on any materials that you
`failed to list in paragraphs 11 to 15?
` A. I did not.
` Q. I'm going to do the same thing with the
`1249, so if you could look at the same paragraphs 11
`to 15 in the 1249 declaration.
` A. I have that now.
` Q. Okay. Again, there is the Documents
`Reviewed heading. Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Are these the same paragraphs that you
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:14:00
`
`09:14:05
`
`09:14:05
`
`09:14:07
`
`09:14:12
`
`09:14:14
`
`09:14:18
`
`09:14:18
`
`09:14:19
`
`09:14:21
`
`09:14:24
`
`09:14:27
`
`09:14:28
`
`09:14:32
`
`09:14:37
`
`09:14:43
`
`09:14:43
`
`09:15:02
`
`09:15:06
`
`09:15:10
`
`09:15:12
`
`09:15:14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`14
`just looked at in the 1264 declaration? I believe
`they are.
` A. They appear identical, yes.
` Q. Do paragraphs 11 to 15 of your 1249
`accurately reflect all of the documents that you
`considered in forming your opinions for the 1249
`declaration?
` A. They do.
` Q. In forming your opinions in your 1249
`declaration, did you rely on any materials other
`than what you listed in paragraphs 11 to 15?
` A. I did not.
` Q. And if you could pick one of the motion
`to amend declarations. And there is a similar
`heading at paragraphs 12 to 17.
` A. I see that.
` Q. I just want to make sure it had the same
`heading. Do paragraphs 12 to 17 in your motion to
`amend declaration, which is Exhibit 2037, accurately
`reflect all of the documents that you considered in
`forming your opinions in the motion to amend
`declaration?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:15:14
`
`09:15:15
`
`09:15:18
`
`09:15:21
`
`09:15:24
`
`09:15:24
`
`09:15:25
`
`09:15:30
`
`09:15:34
`
`09:15:37
`
`09:15:41
`
`09:15:48
`
`09:15:52
`
`09:15:57
`
`09:16:03
`
`09:16:09
`
`09:16:14
`
`09:16:15
`
`09:16:17
`
`09:16:20
`
`09:16:24
`
`09:16:31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`15
`
` A. It does.
` Q. In forming your opinions in your motion
`to amend declaration, did you rely on any materials,
`other than what you listed in paragraphs 12 through
`17?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Now, comparing the documents reviewed
`from the 1264 and 1249 declarations with the
`documents reviewed in your motion to amend
`declaration, there were some differences. It
`appears that you considered -- well, let me back up.
` The highest IP Bridge Exhibit Number in
`each of your 1264 and 1249 declarations is Exhibit
`2036. In your motion to amend declaration, you also
`list IP Bridge Exhibits 2039, 2040, 2041, and 2042.
`And you list the Patent Owner's motions to amend as
`well.
` And what I'm getting at is, as far as I
`can tell, the only new exhibits that you considered
`for the motion to amend declaration were the
`Exhibits 2039, 2040, 2041 and 2042, and IP Bridge's
`motion to amend, as compared to your other
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:16:33
`
`09:16:35
`
`09:16:37
`
`09:17:06
`
`09:17:07
`
`09:17:14
`
`09:17:18
`
`09:17:22
`
`09:17:24
`
`09:17:25
`
`09:17:30
`
`09:17:36
`
`09:17:39
`
`09:17:41
`
`09:17:44
`
`09:17:48
`
`09:17:53
`
`09:17:54
`
`09:18:11
`
`09:18:12
`
`09:18:14
`
`09:18:16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`16
`
`declarations. Is that correct?
` A. If you'll please give me a moment to
`compare it. That is accurate mand it does reflect
`what I reviewed.
` Q. To be clear, IP Bridge Exhibits 2039,
`2040, 2041 and 2042 in the Patent Owner's motion to
`amend are the only additional exhibits you
`considered for the motion to amend declaration, as
`compared to your other declarations?
` A. Without a further extensive examination
`to look, yes.
` Q. So what I'd like to do now is hand you
`several patents that I did not see listed as
`documents reviewed in any of your declarations. And
`I'm going to give them new exhibit numbers, and I'll
`just put a sticker on it.
` MR. FINK: I'm going to object to the
`extent it exceeds the scope of direct.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. What I'm going to do is hand you a patent
`that you haven't listed in your declarations, and I
`want to ask you if you have seen it before, and if
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:18:18
`
`09:18:21
`
`09:18:25
`
`09:18:26
`
`09:18:29
`
`09:18:31
`
`09:18:33
`
`09:18:44
`
`09:18:55
`
`09:18:56
`
`09:18:57
`
`09:19:03
`
`09:19:06
`
`09:19:08
`
`09:19:08
`
`09:19:08
`
`09:19:12
`
`09:19:16
`
`09:19:19
`
`09:19:42
`
`09:19:43
`
`09:19:43
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`17
`
`you've formed any opinions about it.
` A. Very well.
` MR. FINK: Can I just have a running
`objection for these exhibits, that they are beyond
`the scope of direct, so I don't have to raise it
`each time?
` MR. KABAKOFF: That's fine. I've handed
`you UK Patent GB 2,298,657. Have you seen this
`Exhibit before?
` A. I have not.
` Q. And this Exhibit, I labelled TSMC Exhibit
`1025.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1025 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`TSMC Exhibit 1025 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1026 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:19:43
`
`09:19:50
`
`09:20:02
`
`09:20:07
`
`09:20:10
`
`09:20:12
`
`09:20:14
`
`09:20:17
`
`09:20:20
`
`09:20:32
`
`09:20:34
`
`09:20:35
`
`09:20:44
`
`09:20:44
`
`09:20:45
`
`09:20:51
`
`09:21:05
`
`09:21:14
`
`09:21:16
`
`09:21:16
`
`09:21:19
`
`09:21:22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`18
` Q. I'm handing you U.S. Patent 5,780,908 to
`Sekiguchi, and I've labelled this TSMC Exhibit 1026.
`Have you seen Exhibit 1026, which is the patent to
`Sekiguchi that I handed you?
` A. I have not seen this patent.
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1026 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` MR. KABAKOFF: I have five more, just so
`you know.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1027 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. I'm handing you U.S. Patent 5,869,902 to
`Lee. And I've labelled this TSMC Exhibit 1027.
`Have you seen Exhibit 1027, which is U.S. Patent
`5,869,902, before today?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1027 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:21:24
`
`09:21:33
`
`09:21:36
`
`09:21:36
`
`09:21:37
`
`09:21:45
`
`09:21:58
`
`09:22:03
`
`09:22:05
`
`09:22:06
`
`09:22:08
`
`09:22:12
`
`09:22:14
`
`09:22:15
`
`09:22:31
`
`09:22:38
`
`09:22:39
`
`09:22:44
`
`09:22:55
`
`09:22:55
`
`09:23:02
`
`09:23:04
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`19
`
` A. I have not.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1028 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. I'm handing you U.S. Patent 5,882,399 to
`Nagan, and I've labelled this TSMC Exhibit 1028.
`Have you seen U.S. Patent 5,882,399, which is
`Exhibit 1028, before today?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1028 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Next I have U.S. Patent 6,057,237 to
`Ding, et al. And I will label this TSMC Exhibit
`1029.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1029 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Have you seen U.S. Patent 6,057,237 to
`Ding, which is Exhibit 1029, before today?
` A. I have not.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:23:05
`
`09:23:06
`
`09:23:09
`
`09:23:10
`
`09:23:23
`
`09:23:24
`
`09:23:24
`
`09:23:25
`
`09:23:30
`
`09:23:44
`
`09:23:51
`
`09:23:54
`
`09:23:55
`
`09:23:56
`
`09:24:01
`
`09:24:03
`
`09:24:05
`
`09:24:06
`
`09:24:06
`
`09:24:06
`
`09:24:26
`
`09:24:32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`20
`
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1029 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1030 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. I'm handing you U.S. Patent 6,136,682 to
`Hegde, which I've labelled TSMC Exhibit 1030. Have
`you seen Exhibit 1030, which is U.S. Patent
`6,136,682, before today?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1030 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1031 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Last one. This is U.S. Patent 6,242,804
`to Inoue. I can't pronounce it, but it's I-N-O-U-E.
`I've labelled this TSMC Exhibit 1031. Have you seen
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:24:44
`
`09:24:52
`
`09:24:52
`
`09:24:53
`
`09:24:55
`
`09:24:59
`
`09:25:00
`
`09:25:02
`
`09:25:06
`
`09:25:10
`
`09:25:13
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:14
`
`09:25:19
`
`09:25:23
`
`09:25:26
`
`09:25:26
`
`09:25:43
`
`09:26:10
`
`09:26:11
`
`09:26:11
`
`09:26:14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 1031, which is Patent 6,242,804, before
`today?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Have you formed any opinions regarding
`Exhibit 1031 in connection with these IPR
`proceedings for the '324 patent?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Did you analyze any invalidity
`contentions for the '324 patent as served on IP
`Bridge by any defendant in the related District
`Court litigation?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Did you analyze any invalidity charts for
`the '324 patent as served on IP Bridge by any
`defendant in the related District Court litigation?
` A. I did not.
` Q. You can put those aside. I'd like to go
`to your motion to amend declaration at paragraph 20.
`Do you have it?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You see in paragraph 20 of your motion to
`amend declaration, you state, "I understand that in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:26:18
`
`09:26:21
`
`09:26:24
`
`09:26:27
`
`09:26:30
`
`09:26:30
`
`09:26:31
`
`09:26:35
`
`09:26:38
`
`09:26:38
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:42
`
`09:26:46
`
`09:26:51
`
`09:26:54
`
`09:26:56
`
`09:27:01
`
`09:27:04
`
`09:27:07
`
`09:27:10
`
`09:27:13
`
`09:27:14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`22
`the context of amending claims in an IPR, the burden
`is on the Patent Owner to show patentable
`distinction over the prior art of record and also
`prior art known to the Patent Owner. Do you see
`that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Did you confirm that you considered all
`prior art known to IP Bridge related to the '324
`patent?
` A. I apologize. Could you rephrase the
`question?
` Q. Did you confirm that you considered all
`the prior art that was in the possession of --
`strike that.
` I'm just referring to the language in
`paragraph 20. You said, the burden is on the Patent
`Owner to show patentable distinction over the prior
`art of record and also prior art known to the Patent
`Owner. Did you confirm that you analyzed all the
`prior art that was known to the Patent Owner, IP
`Bridge, in this case?
` A. I did.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:27:14
`
`09:27:16
`
`09:27:19
`
`09:27:19
`
`09:27:22
`
`09:27:27
`
`09:27:30
`
`09:27:31
`
`09:27:36
`
`09:27:38
`
`09:27:42
`
`09:27:44
`
`09:27:45
`
`09:27:45
`
`09:27:48
`
`09:27:50
`
`09:27:53
`
`09:27:55
`
`09:27:57
`
`09:28:03
`
`09:28:05
`
`09:28:05
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
` Q. How did you confirm that you considered
`all prior art known to IP Bridge relating to the
`'324 patent?
` A. I reviewed the known prior art that was
`supplied to me by the Patent Owner. And then
`confirmed that with them, that this was the prior
`art known to them.
` Q. Would your opinions in your motion to
`amend declaration be incomplete if there was prior
`art that was known to IP Bridge, but not shared with
`you?
` MR. FINK: Objection.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. I'm sorry, for the '324 patent?
` MR. FINK: Objection, requires a legal
`conclusion. Objection, requires speculation.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know if I could
`answer that, because I don't have the legal
`experience to say that -- a true or false answer to
`that question.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Would you agree, based on paragraph 20 of
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:28:07
`
`09:28:09
`
`09:28:13
`
`09:28:14
`
`09:28:15
`
`09:28:15
`
`09:28:18
`
`09:28:22
`
`09:28:23
`
`09:28:25
`
`09:28:29
`
`09:28:32
`
`09:28:34
`
`09:28:35
`
`09:28:39
`
`09:28:43
`
`09:28:48
`
`09:28:53
`
`09:28:54
`
`09:28:54
`
`09:28:56
`
`09:28:58
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`24
`your declaration, that you needed to consider all
`the prior art known by IP Bridge?
` A. Known to the Patent Owner.
` Q. Which is IP Bridge?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So if IP Bridge knew of prior art that's
`related to the '324 patent, but didn't share that
`with you, would your opinions be incomplete?
` A. I don't know if I could draw a
`conclusion, based on whether or not they knew if it
`was a complete set of prior art, so I don't know if
`I could honestly answer the question. I don't have
`the experience in the legal area.
` Q. Hypothetically, if there was a claim
`chart that mapped every element of the '324 patent
`claims challenging these IPRs to prior art known to
`IP Bridge, but you never saw those claim charts?
` MR. FINK: Objection.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Would you agree that your opinions would
`be incomplete, because you did not consider all
`prior art known to the Patent Owner?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:29:00
`
`09:29:01
`
`09:29:04
`
`09:29:05
`
`09:29:10
`
`09:29:10
`
`09:29:11
`
`09:29:19
`
`09:29:24
`
`09:29:26
`
`09:29:26
`
`09:29:29
`
`09:29:35
`
`09:29:37
`
`09:29:58
`
`09:30:02
`
`09:30:03
`
`09:30:05
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`25
` MR. FINK: Objection, it requires a legal
`conclusion. Objection, beyond the scope of direct.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not in the habit of
`doing hypotheticals in areas that I'm not an expert
`in.
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
` Q. Are you aware of any invalidity claim
`charts that were known to IP Bridge relating to the
`'324 patent, based on prior art that you did not
`consider?
` A. I'm not aware of any IP claim charts.
` Q. Invalidity claim charts?
` A. I'm not aware of any charts.
` Q. As you expect, we're probably going to
`talk a lot about Zhang and Ding and Sun.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. I'm going to give you copies of these
`three references now.
` (TSMC Exhibit No. 1004, 1005, 1007
` were previously marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. KABAKOFF:
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 254
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01264/ IPR2016-01249
`Harris, Ph.D., Harlan R.
`
`May 5, 2017
`
`09:30:24
`
`09:30:28
`
`09:30:36
`
`09:30:50
`
`09:31:04
`
`09:31:06
`
`09:31:09
`
`09:31:11
`
`09:31:16
`
`09:31:21
`
`09:31:30
`
`09:31:35
`
`09:31:42
`
`09:31:50
`
`09:31:53
`
`09:31:54
`
`09:31:55
`
`09:32:05
`
`09:32:08
`
`09:32:10
`
`09:32:10
`
`09:32:20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`26
`
` Q. So I'm handing you TSMC 1004, which is
`the Zhang patent. And I'll hand you TSMC Exhibit
`1005, which is the Ding patent. And I'm handing you
`Exhibit 1007, which is the Sun reference. And just
`for the record, I'm going to read the full patent
`number and citation, just to be clear what we are
`looking at.
` The Zhang patent is U.S. Patent
`5,893,752, which is Exhibit 1004. The Ding patent
`is U.S. Patent 6,887,353, which is TSMC Exhibit
`1005. And the Sun reference is an article entitled
`Properties of Reactively Sputter-Deposited Ta-N Thin
`Films, which is Exhibit 1007. Are these the same
`Zhang, Ding, and Sun references that you discuss in
`your declarations?
` A. They appear to be.
` Q. And I'll represent that these references
`are all listed in your documents reviewed section of
`your declarations.
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you could turn to paragraph 22 in you
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
