`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _____________________________
` )
` APPLE, INC., )
` Petitioner, )
` )
` V. ) Case IPR2016-01737
` ) Patent 8,880,862 B2
` REALTIME DATA, LLC. )
` Patent Owner. )
` )
` _____________________________)
`
` DEPOSITION OF: DR. GODMAR BACK
`
` December 7, 2017 (Thursday)
`
` 9:30 a.m
`
`.
`
`REPORTED BY: Mary J. Butenschoen, RPR, #44952
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` 1
`
`APPLE 1047
`Apple v. Realtime Data
`IPR2016-01737
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` Andrew Patrick
`
` R. Andrew Schwentker
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
` axf-ptab@fr.com
`
` patrick@fr.com
`
` schwentker.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` Joseph F. Edell
`
` Alyssa H. Ruderman
`
` FISCH SIGLER LLP
`
` joe.edell@fischllp.com
`
` alyssa.ruderman@fischllp.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`
`EXAMINATION OF DR. GODMAR BACK PAGE
`
`By Mr. Schwentker 4
`
`By Mr. Edell 154
`
` * * * * *
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` (None)
`
` * * * * *
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Whereupon at 9:37 a.m.,
`
` DR. GODMAR BACK
`
`after having first been duly sworn to tell the
`
`truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
`
`was examined and testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Good morning, Doctor Back. For the
`
`record, this is Andy Schwentker from Fish &
`
`Richardson on behalf of Petitioner Apple. Could you
`
`please state your full name for the record.
`
` A My name is Dr. Godmar Back.
`
` Q The court reporter has handed you two
`
`documents. The first one is in case IPR 2006-01737,
`
`and it's title Expert Declaration of Dr. Godmar Back
`
`in Support of Patent Owners Supplemental Response to
`
`its Motion to Amend. Do you see that?
`
` A Yes, I do.
`
` Q And is this your declaration?
`
` A Yes, it is.
`
` Q And you submitted this on December 1,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2017; is that correct?
`
` A Yes, I did.
`
` Q The other document has the same title
`
`but is in Case IPR 2016-01738. Do you see that?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q And is this your declaration as well?
`
` A It is.
`
` Q And you submitted this declaration on
`
`December 1, 2017; is that correct?
`
` A Yes, I did.
`
` Q Or at least you signed it on that
`
`date?
`
` A I signed it on that date. I think
`
`counsel did the actual submission.
`
` Q Right. And I don't recall if that
`
`submission took place on the 1st or not, but you
`
`signed both of these declarations on December 1,
`
`2017, right?
`
` A Yes. I think there was an issue with
`
`an extension because of a family emergency for one
`
`of the counsel.
`
` Q Are these -- so it's my understanding
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that these declarations are the same. Is that
`
`accurate?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` For the record, this is Joe Edell,
`
` counsel for Patent Owner Realtime Data,
`
` joined today by Alyssa Ruderman, both from
`
` the firm Fisch Zigler.
`
` THE WITNESS: They relate to two
`
` different proceedings but they make the
`
` same arguments.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. And so if -- if I refer to one
`
`of the declarations during your deposition today,
`
`will you understand that my question applies equally
`
`to both declarations?
`
` A I do, as long as it is not referring
`
`to those things that are different in the two
`
`proceedings.
`
` Q Okay. But there aren't any
`
`differences between the actual text of the
`
`declarations; is that right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm not entirely
`
` certain, but I do not believe so.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. Let's see, and these are
`
`your -- I believe your third declarations submitted
`
`in the 1737 and 1738 proceedings; is that right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. I
`
` think those are the third -- this is the
`
` third kind of declarations in the motion to
`
` amend proceedings, not in the 1737 IPR.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. So are these your fourth
`
`declarations in the 1737 and 1738 proceedings?
`
` A I think it would be.
`
` Q Okay. So if I refer to your fourth
`
`declaration, you'll understand that I'm referring to
`
`these declarations?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Okay. I'd like for you to turn to
`
`paragraph 5 of your declaration.
`
` And in that paragraph you state that
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`in forming your opinions you have reviewed and
`
`considered the materials identified in the
`
`paragraphs above. Those identified in your prior
`
`declarations of June 14, 2017, and October 11, 2017.
`
`And the materials cited and discussed in this
`
`declaration.
`
` Can you state for the record which
`
`materials you reviewed before signing this
`
`declaration?
`
` MR. EDELL: Doctor Back, I just
`
` caution you, in replying to the question,
`
` don't reveal any discussions you had with
`
` counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: As it says in paragraph
`
` 5, I reviewed and considered the materials
`
` identified in the paragraphs above. And
`
` that is referring to paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4,
`
` which talks about a number of documents
`
` related to these proceedings, as well as
`
` those identified in prior declarations.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q In paragraph 4 which you referred to,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`you state that you were asked to consider Apple's
`
`arguments, Doctor Neuhauser's declaration, and
`
`Doctor Neuhauser's cross-examination testimony to
`
`determine whether those materials affect the
`
`analysis and conclusions stated in your declarations
`
`of June 14, 2017, and October 11, 2017.
`
` Did you review all of these materials
`
`and the references cited in those materials while
`
`preparing this declaration?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I reviewed all of these
`
` materials. Specifically, this paragraph
`
` refers to the supplemental response and the
`
` accompanying declaration, and with respect
`
` to the references in those documents I
`
` reviewed them to the extent it was
`
` necessary to form my opinions.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q I'd like you to turn to Page 10 of
`
`your declaration. Starting on Page 10, Paragraph
`
`25, and then continuing on to the next pages 11 and
`
`12, there are paragraphs 26 and 27.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A I see those.
`
` Q In these paragraphs you cite three
`
`issues of PC Magazine. A December 1, 1999, issue, a
`
`March 7, 2000 issue, and, a March 21, 2000 issue.
`
`Do you see that?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q Did you fully review those documents
`
`before signing your fourth declaration?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I examined the
`
` material, the advertisements, that are
`
` presented as excerpts in my declaration.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q So you only reviewed the excerpts?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: In the context of these
`
` proceedings, Apple put forth that a person
`
` of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`
` by a cost advantage to perform certain
`
` modifications to Sukegawa's system.
`
` Therefore, I was interested in the
`
` question what would the view of a person of
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` ordinary skill be at the time of the
`
` invention with respect to the relative cost
`
` of flash and RAM.
`
` This reference that I'm citing to
`
` provides the necessary data that would have
`
` influenced the opinion of a person of
`
` ordinary skill in the art. That's why I'm
`
` citing to it.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q I understand. My -- I guess my
`
`question is did you review only the excerpts that
`
`are included as exhibits?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: That is correct.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Did you -- okay. So you didn't
`
`review the entire issues of the PC Magazine that you
`
`cite.
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I did not.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Did you find these issues of PC
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Magazine yourself?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, and I caution
`
` you not to discuss or refer to any
`
` discussions you had with counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I -- I -- I
`
` collaborated on this with counsel. I
`
` basically had them go out and look up this
`
` information.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Was this information that you
`
`recalled from the time period?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` MR. SCHWENTKER: Strike that.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q In other words, did you remember
`
`there were particular issues of PC Magazine that
`
`would be helpful?
`
` MR. EDELL: Object to the form, and I
`
` instruct you not to refer to any
`
` discussions you have had with counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: I know and a person of
`
` ordinary skill would know that the relative
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` price of flash and RAM has been changing
`
` historically.
`
` We know that a long time ago, in
`
` 1980, flash was significantly more
`
` expensive. We know today it is cheaper on
`
` a appropriate basis. At some point the
`
` price ratio changed.
`
` We were interested in finding out
`
` what was the person -- what was the view of
`
` a person of ordinary skill as of February
`
` 2000, which Doctor Neuhauser acknowledges
`
` the appropriate time, the time of the
`
` invention. And so looking at magazines
`
` that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
` would read seemed an appropriate reference.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q I'm just trying to get a sense of
`
`whether you remembered that, oh, yeah, there are
`
`these, you know, issues of PC Magazine from around
`
`the time period that will show what the cost of
`
`flash and RAM was at the time. Let's go find those.
`
` A Yes, I did remember that there were.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I did remember that
`
` there were trade publications at the time
`
` that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
` looked to.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q But not specifically PC Magazine.
`
` MR. EDELL: Object, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: No, PC Magazine as
`
` well. It is a relevant magazine.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q So you specifically remembered that
`
`PC Magazine from the time would show what the cost
`
`of flash and RAM were?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I suggested to do
`
` research in relevant trade publication of
`
` the period, of the time period such as PC
`
` Magazine, yes.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Were there any other trade
`
`publications you suggested?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form. I -- I
`
` actually instruct you not to answer.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Were there any other trade
`
`publications you thought of?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: In my declaration I'm
`
` citing to the publication upon which I
`
` relied in order to form my opinion that a
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
` not have been motivated by cost to combine
`
` Sukegawa with DRAM in the manner the
`
` petitioner has proposed.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q In paragraph 25 you say there's
`
`evidence to demonstrate the flash memory could be
`
`obtained for a significantly smaller cost than DRAM
`
`on a per megabyte basis as of February 2000. Do you
`
`see that?
`
` A Yes, I see where it says that.
`
` Q How did you reach this conclusion?
`
` A It is based on the advertisement to
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`which I am citing which shows a lower per megabyte
`
`price.
`
` Q Okay. So the basis for that opinion
`
`is what's set forth in the remainder of paragraph
`
`25?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The remainder of
`
` paragraph 25 demonstrates by example why I
`
` believe that a person of ordinary skill
`
` would reach that conclusion.
`
` In other words, as I say, it presents
`
` evidence that flash memory could be
`
` obtained for significantly smaller cost
`
` than DRAM on a per megabyte basis as of
`
` February 2000.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q I'm just trying to make sure the
`
`basis for that opinion is what you cite from PC
`
`Magazine; is that right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I am presenting
`
` evidence from PC Magazine to back up my
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
` would not have been motivated. And I think
`
` it is evidence that flash memory could be
`
` obtained for a significantly smaller cost
`
` than DRAM.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q In the next paragraph, paragraph 26,
`
`you state that subsequent issues of PC Magazine from
`
`the relevant time frame show that flash remained
`
`available at a lower cost than RAM on a per megabyte
`
`basis, even as the cost of both types of memory
`
`continued to drop. Do you see that?
`
` A I see where it says that.
`
` Q And is that opinion based on the
`
`evidence you cite from PC Magazine?
`
` A Yes, it relates to the -- to the
`
`second ad cited to -- produced, in fact, in
`
`paragraph 26.
`
` Q And then in paragraph 28 you say that
`
`a POSA would have been aware that the cost of flash
`
`memory was dropping relative to RAM prior to
`
`February 2000 and that by February 2000 RAM could in
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`fact be more expensive or at least equally as
`
`expensive as flash on a per megabyte basis.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A Yes, I see where it says that, and
`
`that is correct as well.
`
` Q And is that opinion based on the
`
`evidence you cite from PC Magazine?
`
` A Yes, it is. It says it is,
`
`therefore, and that is referring to the evidence
`
`presented in the previous three paragraphs.
`
` Q Okay. So in reaching the conclusions
`
`stated in paragraphs 25 through 29 of your
`
`declaration, did you rely only on the three issues
`
`of PC Magazine referred to in those paragraphs?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: There are three issues
`
` of PC Magazine and the advertisements of
`
` which I am presenting excerpts in forming
`
` my opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
` would have been aware of the price drop in
`
` the cost of flash memory to the point that
`
` they would realize that RAM could in fact
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` be more expensive, or in fact equally as
`
` expensive, and, therefore, would not have
`
` used cost as motivation to augment Sukegawa
`
` system in the way proposed.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q I'm -- I'm just trying to make sure
`
`that the -- what you base the opinion on is the
`
`evidence you cited from PC Magazine in these
`
`paragraphs and not something else.
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I have cited the
`
` documents from which I relied in forming
`
` this opinion.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. Did you review any other trade
`
`publications in forming your -- strike that.
`
` In the context of working on the --
`
`your fourth declaration, did you review any other
`
`trade publications?
`
` MR. EDELL: You can answer yes or no.
`
` THE WITNESS: I personally did not
`
` review any other trade publications because
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` I think that the evidence that we found
`
` clearly demonstrates and backs up my
`
` opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
` would have been aware of the price drop,
`
` would have been aware of flash, and would
`
` have been aware that RAM could in fact be
`
` more expensive, and, therefore, would not
`
` have been motivated by cost to modify
`
` Sukegawa system.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q When you say the evidence that we
`
`found, who are you referring to?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, don't reveal any conversations
`
` you had with counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I mentioned earlier,
`
` I had counsel go out and look up relevant
`
` information from the time of the invention.
`
` So "we" here is referring to myself and the
`
` counsel that I work with.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Before signing your declaration, did
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`you conduct a study of the markets for flash memory
`
`and for RAM during the relevant time frame?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: My task was not to
`
` conduct a study of pricing. My task was to
`
` examine whether a person of ordinary skill
`
` would have viewed cost as a significant
`
` motivation to modify Sukegawa system.
`
` With the evidence I presented it is
`
` my opinion that a person of ordinary skill
`
` would not have been motivated by cost to
`
` modify Sukegawa system in this way.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q In these paragraphs 25 through 28 you
`
`referred to issues of PC Magazine from December 1,
`
`1999, March 7, 2000, and March 21 2000. Is it your
`
`opinion that materials published after February of
`
`2000 can be relevant to issues of patentability in
`
`these proceedings?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So it seems like a
`
` legal question that I'm not certain of, but
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` I would like to reiterate why we were
`
` looking at time the period of February
`
` 2000, because it is the time of the
`
` invention, and I believe that your expert,
`
` Doctor Neuhauser, acknowledged that to him
`
` that time period was the relevant time
`
` period that he used to form his opinions,
`
` which I was asked to valuate, so,
`
` therefore, I was using the same time
`
` period.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q You would agree that the March 7,
`
`2000, issue is from after February of 2000, right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, the -- as I point
`
` out in paragraph 26, the March 7 issue
`
` presumably was prepared before March 7.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q But you don't have any evidence that
`
`it was published before March 7, do you?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: The March 7 issue was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` published on March 7, and as I point out in
`
` paragraph 26 it was necessarily prepared
`
` before March 7. Not presumably. Strike
`
` that from earlier. Necessarily prepared
`
` before March 7.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q You understand that the '862 patent
`
`claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`on February 3 of 2000, correct?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So I take your word for
`
` it that it's the correct priority date. I
`
` would have to see the patent to confirm the
`
` exact date.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q The court reporter has handed you a
`
`copy of U.S. Patent Number 8880862. Do you see
`
`that?
`
` A I do.
`
` Q And on the first page on the
`
`left-hand side about halfway down do you see where
`
`it says: Provisional application number 6180114
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`filed on February 3, 2000?
`
` A Correct, I see that.
`
` Q Okay. So does this confirm for you
`
`the '862 patent claims priority to an application
`
`filed on February 3, 2000?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think it does.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q So the March 7, 2000, issue of PC
`
`Magazine was published more than a month after the
`
`date to which the '862 patent claims priority,
`
`right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think that the
`
` evidence that I'm presenting here which
`
` dates from issues December 1, 1999, March
`
` 7, 2000, and March 21, 2000, are relevant
`
` to the knowledge a person of ordinary skill
`
` would have had at the time of the invention
`
` February 3, 2000.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q You agree, though, that the March 7,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2000, issue of PC Magazine was published more than a
`
`month after the February 3, 2000, date, right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: As I state in my
`
` declaration it was published March 7 and
`
` necessarily prepared before March 7.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q And March 7 comes off February 3,
`
`right?
`
` A It does.
`
` Q Okay. So --
`
` A May I -- may I add that the context
`
`in which this discussion is -- is taking place, I
`
`argue in paragraphs 18 to 28 the information that
`
`would have influenced a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and part of this is that based on the
`
`evidence that is presented here such as the Dye
`
`evidence that Doctor Neuhauser discussed as well as
`
`the relevant advertisement in these trade
`
`publications give us strong reason to believe that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been aware that
`
`a significant price drop of flash drive to RAM was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`taking place and would have been aware that flash
`
`could be obtained for less cost, and, therefore,
`
`would not have been motivated by cost to perform the
`
`combination of Sukegawa in the manner that the
`
`petitioner has proposed, and it was examining
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to do so what I was asked to examine. So
`
`that was my task.
`
` Q Okay. Right now I'm specifically
`
`asking about the issues of PC Magazine you cited,
`
`and, particularly, the March 7, 2000, issue, and the
`
`March 21, 2000, issue. And you would agree that
`
`both of those were published after the date -- after
`
`the February 3, 2000, date of the '862 patent,
`
`right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So March 7 is a later
`
` date than February 3, 2000, that's correct.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q And March 21 is also a later date
`
`than February 3, 2000, correct?
`
` A Yes, it is.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q So my -- my question for you, is it
`
`your opinion the materials published after February
`
`3, 2000, can be relevant to issues of patentability
`
`in these cases?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would not agree to
`
` the statement in the way you proposed it.
`
` Certainly information around that time
`
` clearly relevant, but if you were to
`
` present information from five, ten, fifteen
`
` years later it would not give us any
`
` information as to what would have
`
` influenced a person of ordinary skill at
`
` the time of the invention.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Where would you draw the line between
`
`what is clear -- strike that.
`
` With respect to evidence dated after
`
`the February 3, 2000, date, where would you draw the
`
`line between evidence that, as you say, is clearly
`
`relevant and evidence that you would not consider to
`
`be relevant?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: So this is not a task I
`
` was asked to address here.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. So you don't have an answer?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I was not asked to
`
` address this, and so, no, I don't have an
`
` answer for this -- for you on this at this
`
` point.
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q But you do think that the March 7 and
`
`March 21, 2000, issues of PC Magazine are relevant
`
`to the issues of patentability in these proceedings,
`
`right?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think they are
`
` relevant to provide us with information
`
` regarding the knowledge that a person of
`
` ordinary skill would have had at the time
`
` of the invention in February of 2000.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Godmar Back - December 7, 2017
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SCHWENTKER:
`
` Q Okay. So you would agree that at
`
`least some materials from after February 3, 2000,
`
`can be relevant to the issues of patentability in
`
`these proceedings?
`
` MR. EDELL: Objection, form.
`
` Objection, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: My statement is
`
` specifically that the materials that I am
`
` presenting here are relevant to the
`
` knowledge a person of ordinary skill would
`
` have had at