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
`
`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., Case No.: IPR1016-01381
`
` Petitioner, Patent No.: 8,773,356
`
` v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`
` Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________________________
`
` INTER PARTES REVIEW
` EXAMINATION OF
` PATRICK M. BAUDISCH, Ph.D.
` San Diego, California
` Monday, August 14, 2017
` Volume 1
`
`Reported by:
`LESLIE JOHNSON
`RPR, CCRR, CSR No. 11451
`Job No.: 2677325
`PAGES 1 - 92
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-1
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 I N D E X
`
`2 3
`
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`4 PATRICK M. BAUDISCH, Ph.D.
`Volume 1
`
` BY MR. FLEMING 5
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
` EXHIBITS
`9 PATRICK M. BAUDISCH, Ph.D.
`10 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`11 Exhibit 2011 Star Craft guide 54
`12 Exhibit 2012 Super Smash Bros. guide 57
`13
`
`PREVIOUSLY MARKED DOCUMENTS:
`
`Exhibit 1001 United States Patent No. 8,773,356 12
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. Patrick Baudisch 29
`
`Exhibit 1007 Patent Application No. 09/487,737 49
`
`Exhibit 1013 Patent Application No. 09/103,281 49
`
`Exhibit 1025 Reply Declaration of Patrick Baudisch 10
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`3
`
`APPLE INC., Case No.: IPR1016-01381
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
` Petitioner, Patent No.: 8,773,356
`
` v.
`
`IMMERSION CORPORATION,
`
` Patent Owner.
`8 _________________________________________________________
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17 INTER PARTES REVIEW, EXAMINATION OF PATRICK M.
`18 BAUDISCH, Ph.D., Volume 1, taken on behalf of Patent
`19 Owner, at 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego,
`20 California, beginning at 9:08 a.m. And ending at
`21 5:18 p.m., on Monday, August 14, 2017, before LESLIE
`22 JOHNSON, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 11451.
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`1 San Diego, California, Monday, August 14, 2017
`2 9:08 A.M.
`
`3 4
`
` MR. FLEMING: I'm Mike Fleming, with Irell &
`5 Manella, on behalf of the patent owner. And with me is
`6 James Milkey, also on behalf of the patent owner. This
`7 is IPR2016-01381 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,773,356.
`8 MR. WILLIAMS: Rob Williams with DLA Piper on
`9 behalf of Petitioner Apple. Also with me today on the
`10 phone is Brian Erickson, also with DLA.
`11 THE WITNESS: My name is Patrick Baudisch --
`12 Patrick Markus Baudisch, with a K, and I'm the expert
`13 witness.
`14
`15 PATRICK M. BAUDISCH, Ph.D.,
`16 having been first duly sworn, was examined
`17 and testified as follows:
`18
`19 EXAMINATION
`20 BY MR. FLEMING:
`21 Q Doctor, do you understand you've taken an oath
`22 to tell the truth?
`23 A Yes.
`24 Q Do you understand that this oath has the same
`25 force and effect as if it was given in a court of law
`
`1 APPEARANCES:
`
`2 3
`
`For Petitioner:
`4 DLA PIPER
`5 BY: ROBERT C. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
`6 BRIAN ERICKSON, ESQ. (Telephonically)
`7 401 B Street, Suite 1700
`8 San Diego, California 92101
`9 (619)699-2820
`10 robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`11 For Patent Owner:
`12 IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`13 BY: MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQ.
`14 JAMES A. MILKEY, ESQ.
`15 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`16 Los Angeles, California 90067
`17 (310)277-1010
`18 mfleming@irell.com
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 5
`
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-2
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 before a judge and jury?
`2 A Yes.
`3 Q Is there anything preventing you from giving
`4 accurate and full answers today?
`5 A No.
`6 Q Is there any reason you cannot give your best
`7 testimony today?
`8 A No.
`9 Q If you do not ask me to clarify a question,
`10 I'm going to assume you understood the question.
`11 Is that fair?
`12 A Yes.
`13 Q Are you represented by counsel today?
`14 A Yes.
`15 Q Can you identify counsel?
`16 A Rob Williams next to me.
`17 Q Do you understand that you're under oath, even
`18 when you take a break?
`19 A Yes.
`20 Q Do you understand that you're under oath, and
`21 you are not to discuss the case while on break or with
`22 anyone outside of this room?
`23 A Yes.
`24 Q Do you understand that when you are under
`25 oath, your counsel cannot coach you, act as an
`
`Page 6
`
`1 intermediate, interpret questions, or help you answer
`2 the questions?
`3 A Yes.
`4 Q You understand that your counsel cannot
`5 instruct you on how to answer a question, unless it is
`6 necessary to preserve privilege?
`7 A Yes.
`8 Q Do you understand that, unless your counsel
`9 instructs you not to answer in order to preserve
`10 privilege, you must answer the question?
`11 A Yes.
`12 Q Did you do anything to prepare for the
`13 deposition?
`14 A Yes. I read various materials and I consulted
`15 with counsel.
`16 Q What materials did you read?
`17 A I read the various declarations on both sides
`18 and reply declarations. I read the involved -- reread
`19 the involved patents, you know, whatever is listed as
`20 exhibits in my declaration list.
`21 Q How long did that take?
`22 A You mean the preparation for today?
`23 Q Uh-huh.
`24 A Well, given there are two patents involved, I
`25 think, overall, six days maybe.
`
`Page 7
`
`1 MR. WILLIAMS: Can we take a quick break?
`2 (Pause in the proceedings from 9:14 to
`3 9:16 a.m.)
`4 BY MR. FLEMING:
`5 Q Did you meet with counsel?
`6 A I did.
`7 Q How long did you meet with counsel?
`8 A Including both patents, I think two and a half
`9 days.
`10 Q You mentioned that you -- before the break,
`11 that you had reviewed documents in preparation for this
`12 deposition, correct?
`13 A Yes.
`14 Q Did any of these documents refresh your
`15 memory?
`16 A Yes.
`17 Q What documents refreshed your memory?
`18 A I guess the main patents are the '356, the
`19 '281, the '737. These come to mind. There might have
`20 been more.
`21 Q Did you bring any documents with you?
`22 A I've got a printout of my reply declaration
`23 and the original declaration, fresh off the printer.
`24 Q We would like you not to refer to those
`25 documents. We will provide you the documents here.
`Page 8
`
`1 A I think I can handle that. That's okay.
`2 Q You've been deposed before, correct?
`3 A Yes.
`4 Q Have you testified in a court case?
`5 A Yes.
`6 Q What other matters have you been an expert on?
`7 A I was an expert on Apple versus HTC. I guess
`8 that must have been three years ago, maybe.
`9 Q Are your opinions complete?
`10 A So my reply declaration describes my knowledge
`11 from whenever it was posted, I think two weeks ago. I'm
`12 trying to think if anything new has come to light in
`13 terms of material since then, but I think it should
`14 actually be complete.
`15 Q Did you write the reply declaration yourself?
`16 A Yes. With support from counsel.
`17 Q So you said with support with counsel.
`18 Does that mean counsel wrote some of it?
`19 A Reports went back and forth. Phone calls were
`20 made, yes.
`21 Q Did they write the first draft?
`22 A I don't recall who wrote the first draft.
`23 The -- it was going back and forth between both sides.
`24 Q So in all this back and forth, did you make
`25 corrections toward inaccuracies?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 9
`
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-3
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 A Of course.
`2 Q Do you believe that you consulted all of the
`3 relevant sources of information that may be material to
`4 the -- your opinion in your present reply declaration?
`5 A I think so.
`6 (Exhibit 1025 introduced)
`7 BY MR. FLEMING:
`8 Q I want to present Exhibit 1025. I'm
`9 presenting you Exhibit 1025.
`10 A Thank you.
`11 Q Do you recognize this exhibit?
`12 A Yes. My reply declaration.
`13 Q Is it the reply declaration for the '356
`14 patent?
`15 A For the '356, yes.
`16 Q Right. So it's the '356 which is the present
`17 IPR?
`18 A Yes.
`19 Q Feel free to refer to this document as you
`20 need during the deposition.
`21 A Thank you.
`22 Q What languages do you speak?
`23 A So my native language is German. I speak
`24 English because I spent nine years in the U.S. And I
`25 speak French as well. I've got a basic knowledge of
`Page 10
`
`1 Latin, I guess.
`2 Q So what order did you learn those languages?
`3 A The first one would be German. Then English,
`4 then French, then Latin.
`5 Q So where did you grow up?
`6 A Germany.
`7 Q So you grew up speaking German?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Before the other languages?
`10 A That's true.
`11 Q Can a noun ever function as an adjective in
`12 the German language?
`13 A I cannot really think of an example, but
`14 examples in English come to mind like '50s expressions
`15 like "That's swell." I would assume that -- do you
`16 think "swell" was a noun at some point? Probably,
`17 right.
`18 Q So you can't think of a situation of where
`19 that occurs in German?
`20 A It's hard because I'm thinking in English
`21 right now. So let me think harder.
`22 Q So to repeat the question, can a noun ever
`23 function as an adjective in the German language?
`24 A I guess there are examples, in slang language,
`25 yeah. I guess over time, you don't think of them as
`
`1 nouns anymore. It would be an unusual case.
`2 Q So it's an unusual case in German?
`3 A I would assume, yeah, except in those cases
`4 where it just comes down to tracing back what the origin
`5 of the word was in the first place. And I would assume
`6 that many of those originated maybe as nouns. I don't
`7 know. But as you rightfully point out, I'm an engineer.
`8 So this would not be my primary expertise.
`9 Q Can a noun ever function as an adjective in
`10 the English language?
`11 A As I was just saying, I would assume that in
`12 some examples. In slang language, I think that might
`13 have happened a couple times.
`14 Q So only in slang language can a noun ever
`15 function as an adjective in English?
`16 A That's not what I said. It's just that that's
`17 what comes to mind.
`18 Q You can't think of a --
`19 A I would have to spend a lot of time on really
`20 being sure.
`21 Q You can't think of an example in formal
`22 language?
`23 A Nothing comes to mind right now.
`24 (Exhibit 1001 introduced.)
`25 / / / /
`
`Page 12
`
`1 BY MR. FLEMING:
`2 Q Doctor, I'd like to present you Exhibit 1001.
`3 A I think you just gave me the '356 patent.
`4 Q So you recognize this document?
`5 A Yes.
`6 Q Can you read the full patent number for us?
`7 A Of course. U.S. 8,773,356 B2.
`8 Q Is this the patent that's being challenged in
`9 the IPR?
`10 A Yes.
`11 Q Can we turn to column 20, please.
`12 Do you see claim 1 in column 20?
`13 A Yes.
`14 Q So the claim language states, quote,
`15 "Generating a haptic signal based, at least in part, on
`16 the interaction haptic effect data in a lookup table,"
`17 correct?
`18 Want me to repeat it again?
`19 The claim language states "Generating an
`20 actuator signal, based at least in part on the
`21 interaction and haptic effect data in a lookup table."
`22 A Correct.
`23 Q In the phrase -- scratch that.
`24 Is, quote, "Interaction and haptic effect
`25 data" a phrase?
`
`Page 11
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-4
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Vague.
`2 THE WITNESS: I'd say that's a fragment.
`3 Specifically, also, the text seems to refer to the
`4 interaction.
`5 BY MR. FLEMING:
`6 Q Looking at "haptic effect data," is "haptic
`7 effect" modifying "data"?
`8 A I'd say so.
`9 Q Is "haptic effect" an adjective?
`10 A No. It's a noun.
`11 Q Looking at the quote, "the interaction and
`12 haptic effect data," end quote, is it possible that
`13 "interaction" is modifying "data" as an adjective?
`14 A Could you repeat that"?
`15 Q Looking at the quote, "the interaction and
`16 haptic effect data," end of quote, is it possible that
`17 the, quote, "interaction" is modifying "data" as an
`18 adjective?
`19 A I don't understand it that way for two
`20 reasons.
`21 Q I didn't ask you how you understood it. I was
`22 asking, is it possible in the English language?
`23 A As we already agreed upon, my native language
`24 is German, not English. However, I've analyzed this in
`25 the context of this patent, and it seems more relevant
`Page 14
`
`1 I just consider this in isolation and I put "sausage" in
`2 front of the word, then it becomes nonsensical. So
`3 somehow I need to consider this in some context. And
`4 that would be, for me, claim 1. And there I have an
`5 opinion. If it's removed from claim 1, I'm not sure how
`6 to -- how to describe my opinion there.
`7 Q So do you see the word "comprising" in
`8 claim 1?
`9 A Yes.
`10 Q What do you understand comprising to mean in
`11 the context of claim 1?
`12 A Maybe to fulfill, as a synonym.
`13 Q So how does the term "comprising" impact your
`14 interpretation of the claim language, quote, "based at
`15 least in part on the interaction and haptic effect data
`16 in the table lookup," end of quote?
`17 A Given what I know about the way claims are
`18 formulated, makes me understand that what's following
`19 are different claim limitations and that all of these
`20 have to be fulfilled. So it's logically a conjunction.
`21 Q So based on that statement, are you saying
`22 that the word "comprising" means that -- that you have
`23 to have -- the actuator signal has to generate based
`24 upon interaction and haptic effect data?
`25 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Vague to the extent
`Page 16
`
`1 here. So I would like to answer that question in the
`2 context of claim 1.
`3 Q I'm asking you a specific question. I'm not
`4 asking about claim interpretation. I'm just asking
`5 basic English sentence structure.
`6 Is it possible that "interaction" could be an
`7 adjective in the phrase "the interaction and haptic
`8 effect"?
`9 A As I said a second ago, I think this is a
`10 fragment. And it has very concrete meaning in this very
`11 concrete context, and that actually limits how it can be
`12 interpreted. So I have not --
`13 Q So is it your opinion that it cannot be
`14 possible that it's an adjective?
`15 A I have not had a chance to think about this
`16 outside the context of this claim.
`17 Q So you cannot render an opinion whether it's
`18 possible or not possible?
`19 A I think in its position inside of this claim,
`20 there's lots of clues that tell me what is intended.
`21 Q I'm not asking you about claim interpretation.
`22 I'm simply asking sentence structure in the English
`23 language. Is it possible?
`24 A It's not a sentence. It's a fragment, right?
`25 I mean, if other words were in front of -- if
`
`1 it mischaracterizes the witness's testimony.
`2 THE WITNESS: Having spent some time with
`3 patents, all the word "comprising" tells me is what
`4 follows are claim limitations. And each one of those
`5 has to be fulfilled. And I see, I think, four of them
`6 here.
`7 BY MR. FLEMING:
`8 Q Is it your understanding that every embodiment
`9 described in the specification practiced -- scratch
`10 that.
`11 Does every embodiment described in the
`12 specification practice every element of claim 1?
`13 A Are you asking me if that is the intended
`14 purpose of a claim 1 or of a top-level claim in the
`15 patent or if that holds for the '356 patent?
`16 Q I am just simply asking, does every embodiment
`17 described in the specification of the '356 patent --
`18 must practice every element of claim 1.
`19 A This question has not really come up for me so
`20 far because, so far, my task was to understand not
`21 what's embodiment, but what's claim 1. So in claim
`22 construction, the main question was how to interpret
`23 claim 1. And in that sense, what is an embodiment under
`24 various claim constructions can certainly be a question,
`25 and I'll be happy to speak to that.
`
`Page 15
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 17
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-5
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 For the question you asked me, it's almost
`2 cyclical, right? If something practices the claim, then
`3 you would probably refer to it as an embodiment. So I'm
`4 not sure if that sentence is not just a tautology.
`5 Q Let me ask you it in a different way.
`6 Is it your opinion that claim 1 must encompass
`7 every embodiment described in the specification?
`8 A Again, I feel that's cyclical. If you -- the
`9 moment it practices a claim, I would call it then an
`10 embodiment, right? If the inventor describes background
`11 explaining what a touch screen is, or maybe more
`12 abstractly, if the inventor explains what the field of
`13 haptics is, I would not call that embodiment.
`14 So I think what you're doing is you're giving
`15 me the definition of an embodiment and asking me to
`16 define "embodiment."
`17 Q I was simply asking you, do you agree that
`18 there is different embodiments in the specification?
`19 A This is not what you asked me a second ago,
`20 but there is certainly a different embodiment in the
`21 specification.
`22 Q And of those different embodiments in the
`23 specification, is it your opinion that claim 1 must
`24 encompass all of those embodiments?
`25 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Vague as to the
`Page 18
`
`1 meaning of "embodiment."
`2 THE WITNESS: My understanding is that, if
`3 part of the specification practices the claim, then I
`4 would refer to it as an embodiment. This is why I think
`5 that your question has a cyclical nature to it.
`6 BY MR. FLEMING:
`7 Q So you agree that there is a number of
`8 embodiments in the specification?
`9 A I agree that there is multiple embodiments in
`10 this particular disclosure.
`11 Q And can you identify these embodiments?
`12 A In this case, I would simply turn to my reply
`13 declaration, page 4, paragraph 10. And here I'm making
`14 a reference to the dwell to select embodiment where an
`15 executable code determines whether a user has held the
`16 pressure long enough to exceed a predetermined time.
`17 That would be one example of an embodiment.
`18 Q So then is it your opinion that claim 1 must
`19 encompass the dwell to select embodiment?
`20 A I just stand by what I said a minute ago.
`21 I think the moment it practices the claim,
`22 then I would refer to it as an embodiment. And, also, I
`23 have thought about these aspects in the context of claim
`24 construction. So the question was not so much to decide
`25 if something is an embodiment, but what claim 1 should
`Page 19
`
`1 be.
`2 Q Do you understand what "scope of the claim"
`3 means?
`4 MR. WILLIAMS: Vague.
`5 THE WITNESS: The term has not come up
`6 recently, but my understanding would be that it refers
`7 to the set of things that would map to the claim.
`8 BY MR. FLEMING:
`9 Q So the set of things that are mapped to the
`10 claim, would you say that they would be different
`11 embodiments?
`12 A You could call those embodiments.
`13 Q So then is it your opinion that claim 1 must
`14 include all of the set of things or embodiments
`15 disclosed in the specification?
`16 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Vague.
`17 THE WITNESS: I would say some.
`18 As I mentioned a minute ago, I would define it
`19 the other way around. If something does map to a claim,
`20 I would consider calling it an embodiment.
`21 BY MR. FLEMING:
`22 Q So it's not an embodiment if it's not mapped
`23 to a claim?
`24 MR. WILLIAMS: Vague.
`25 THE WITNESS: I think this question has not
`Page 20
`
`1 been material to my analysis so far.
`2 BY MR. FLEMING:
`3 Q So you didn't consider the scope of claim 1?
`4 A I definitely considered the scope of claim 1,
`5 particularly under the various claim constructions.
`6 Q So did you consider the scope of claim 1 in
`7 light of the specification?
`8 A During claim construction, the specification
`9 certainly played an important role.
`10 Q And for your determining the scope of the
`11 claim for claim 1, was it your opinion that all of the
`12 embodiments in the specification had to be included in
`13 claim 1?
`14 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Vague.
`15 THE WITNESS: As I said a couple of minutes
`16 ago, I would define it the other way around, something
`17 that does match the claim, I would consider an
`18 embodiment.
`19 BY MR. FLEMING:
`20 Q So something that maps to the claim is an
`21 embodiment that's within the scope of the claim?
`22 A I would say so.
`23 Q So if an embodiment in the specification
`24 doesn't map to the claim, it's not within the scope of
`25 claim 1?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-6
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 A Again, this has not really been the subject of
`2 my analysis. The subject of my analysis was to come up
`3 with claim construction. And then the question was the
`4 other way around, how should claim 1 be understood in
`5 order to make sure that the relevant parts of the
`6 disclosure would not be excluded from it.
`7 Q So then are you saying that all of the
`8 embodiments in the specification must map to the claim?
`9 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. The question
`10 mischaracterizes the witness's testimony.
`11 THE WITNESS: As I was saying earlier, I think
`12 those elements of the specification that map to a claim,
`13 I would refer to them as an embodiment.
`14 BY MR. FLEMING:
`15 Q So for me to understand this, what I believe
`16 you are saying is that, if something in the
`17 specification doesn't map to claim 1, it's not an
`18 embodiment?
`19 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Mischaracterizes
`20 the witness's testimony.
`21 THE WITNESS: Again, this hasn't really been
`22 the subject of my analysis. The subject of my analysis
`23 is claim construction.
`24 BY MR. FLEMING:
`25 Q So how do you know that dwell to select is an
`Page 22
`
`1 embodiment?
`2 A I guess because the specification says so. I
`3 quote, "in the embodiment shown," comma.
`4 Q So your basis of an embodiment is based upon
`5 whether the specification says it's an embodiment?
`6 Let me state that again. It didn't come
`7 across right.
`8 So your basis of whether or not the
`9 specification is disclosing an embodiment is based upon
`10 whether the specification states that it is an
`11 embodiment?
`12 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Form.
`13 THE WITNESS: In this particular example, it
`14 certainly is useful to see those exact words in the
`15 disclosure.
`16 BY MR. FLEMING:
`17 Q So everything described in patent '356 as an
`18 embodiment is within the scope of the claim 1; is that
`19 correct?
`20 A Everything that the inventor described as an
`21 embodiment I understand that the inventor would like to
`22 be understood as an embodiment.
`23 Q You didn't answer the question, though.
`24 Does that mean that everything described in
`25 patent '356 as an embodiment is within the scope of
`
`1 claim 1?
`2 A As I just said, I think that the term -- the
`3 fragment "in the embodiment shown" indicates that the
`4 inventor is thinking that this is an embodiment.
`5 Q And does that mean that it must be within the
`6 scope of claim 1? Yes or no?
`7 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection to form. Asked and
`8 answered.
`9 THE WITNESS: As I said a couple of minutes
`10 ago, this particular question has not been relevant to
`11 my analysis. My analysis was about claim construction,
`12 which is what you're asking me backwards, if you will.
`13 And I'll be happy to opine on that.
`14 BY MR. FLEMING:
`15 Q I don't believe it's backwards. It's a simple
`16 question.
`17 What is the scope of claim 1? Does it -- must
`18 it include every embodiment in the specification? And
`19 it's just a yes-or-no question.
`20 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Form. Improper
`21 instruction.
`22 THE WITNESS: This particular question has not
`23 been relevant to my analysis. My analysis was about
`24 claim construction, so I'm happy to speak to that.
`25 / / / /
`
`Page 24
`
`1 BY MR. FLEMING:
`2 Q So you didn't determine which embodiments were
`3 included in claim 1?
`4 A I certainly did analyze which parts of
`5 disclosure would be included or excluded, depending on
`6 particular constructions of claim 1.
`7 Q So it's possible that there are certain
`8 embodiments disclosed in the specifications that are not
`9 included in claim 1?
`10 A I stand by my earlier answer.
`11 Q Your earlier answer didn't answer my question.
`12 My question is just quite simply, is it
`13 possible that claim 1's scope doesn't encompass all the
`14 embodiments disclosed in the specification?
`15 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Asked and answered.
`16 Vague as to the meaning of "embodiments."
`17 THE WITNESS: As I tried to explain earlier,
`18 this has not been subject to my analysis. My analysis
`19 was on claim construction.
`20 BY MR. FLEMING:
`21 Q Turning to claim 1, do you see the step of
`22 determining?
`23 A Yes.
`24 Q Do you see the step of generating?
`25 A Yes.
`
`Page 23
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 25
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-7
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 Q To be clear, I saw you turning the pages. Are
`2 we looking at claim 1?
`3 A Now we are.
`4 Q So looking at claim 1, do you see the step of
`5 determining?
`6 A Yes.
`7 Q Do you see the step of generating?
`8 A Yes.
`9 Q Does the step of determining have to happen
`10 before the step of generating?
`11 MR. WILLIAMS: Object as outside the scope of
`12 the reply declaration.
`13 THE WITNESS: Are you referring to this
`14 particular claim or just claims in general?
`15 BY MR. FLEMING:
`16 Q No. I'm referring to claim 1.
`17 A This wasn't really within the scope of my
`18 reply declaration, so I haven't really formed an opinion
`19 about this. But if you would like me to form an opinion
`20 now, I can certainly . . .
`21 Q So when you determined the claim scope, the
`22 claim interpretation, you didn't consider whether the
`23 determining step happened before the generating step?
`24 MR. WILLIAMS: Same objections.
`25 THE WITNESS: I may or may not at some point,
`Page 26
`
`1 but it didn't seem to be part of the contention at this
`2 stage.
`3 BY MR. FLEMING:
`4 Q So at this point, you don't know?
`5 MR. WILLIAMS: Same objection.
`6 Mischaracterizes the witness's testimony.
`7 And just to note, it's 10:30.
`8 BY MR. FLEMING:
`9 Q Just answer the question.
`10 A As I said, I may or may not have analyzed this
`11 as some point, but it didn't seem to come up in the
`12 recent rounds.
`13 Q So at this time, you don't know?
`14 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Outside the scope.
`15 Mischaracterizes the witness's testimony. Asked and
`16 answered.
`17 THE WITNESS: As I said, I may have analyzed
`18 this at some point, but it didn't seem to come up in the
`19 most recent round of replies to replies.
`20 MR. FLEMING: Okay. I think we can take a
`21 recess.
`22 (Recess taken from 10:31 to 10:53 a.m.)
`23 BY MR. FLEMING:
`24 Q Doctor, when you determined the scope of the
`25 claim for claim interpretation -- you had mentioned
`
`Page 27
`
`1 before the break that you didn't consider whether the
`2 determining step happened before the generating step. I
`3 would just like to clarify.
`4 So you didn't find that determination relevant
`5 for the reply brief declaration?
`6 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Mischaracterizes
`7 the witness's testimony.
`8 THE WITNESS: As I said before the break, I
`9 may or may not have analyzed it at some point, but it
`10 didn't seem to become relevant in the last round of
`11 discussions we had.
`12 BY MR. FLEMING:
`13 Q So it wasn't relevant for your reply
`14 declaration?
`15 A Didn't seem to be contained within the scope
`16 of the reply declaration.
`17 Q So if we look at Column 20 of the '356 patent
`18 and we look at claim 1 again --
`19 A Uh-huh.
`20 Q You're at claim 1?
`21 A Yes.
`22 Q Does the generating step require that the
`23 actuator signal is based on, quote, "the interaction,"
`24 end of quote, found in claim 1?
`25 MR. WILLIAMS: Object to the question as
`
`Page 28
`
`1 mischaracterizing the document.
`2 THE WITNESS: Would you mind if I look at my
`3 original declaration?
`4 (Exhibit 1002 introduced.)
`5 BY MR. FLEMING:
`6 Q Sure.
`7 Okay. We'll introduce Exhibit 1002.
`8 Do you recognize this document?
`9 A I do.
`10 Q And what is this document?
`11 A It says "Declaration of Dr. Patrick Baudisch."
`12 Q So now that you have this document, I ask the
`13 question again.
`14 Does the generating step require that the
`15 actuator signal is based upon, quote, "the interaction,"
`16 end of quote, found in claim 1?
`17 MR. WILLIAMS: Objection. Mischaracterizes
`18 the document.
`19 MR. FLEMING: For the record, I want to state
`20 that counsel is improperly coaching the witness.
`21 According to the trial guide, the only proper objections
`22 are "form," "hearsay," "relevance," and "foundation."
`23 MR. WILLIAMS: I disagree that there has been
`24 any coaching going on at this deposition. My objections
`25 are consistent with the objections that patent owner's
`Page 29
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`Job No. 2677325
`
`Immersion Ex 2013-8
`Apple v Immersion
`IPR2016-01381
`
`

`

`Dr. Patrick Baudisch, Ph.D. , IPR2016-01381 - August 14, 2017
`
`1 counsel has been making in prior depositions. But I
`2 will take your instruction under advisement.
`3 THE WITNESS: It looks like claim 1 says
`4 "based at least in part on the interaction."
`5 BY MR. FLEMING:
`6 Q So the generation step requires that the
`7 actuator signal is based, at least in part, on the
`8 interaction; is that correct?
`9 A This particular aspect hasn't been debated in
`10 at least a while, but looking at it here today, I would
`11 say that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
`12 that appears to be the case.
`13 Q The step of d