`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`Case Nos. IPR2017-01280; IPR2017-01285; IPR2017-01287
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` _________________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _________________________________________
`
` TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.
`
` NICOR, INC.
`
` AMAX LIGHTING,
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.
`
` Patent Owner
`
`********************************************************
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. ERIC BRETSCHNEIDER
`
` APRIL 24, 2018
`
`********************************************************
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF DR. ERIC BRETSCHNEIDER, a
`
`witness produced at the instance of the Petitioners, was
`
`taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 24th
`
`day of April 2018, from 10:01 a.m. to 2:38 p.m., before
`
`Dawn Baldwin, CSR in and for the State of Texas,
`
`reported by machine shorthand, at the offices of
`
`Skiermont Derby, LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400,
`
`Dallas, Texas.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`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
`
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1026
`Technical Consumer Products et al. v. Lighting Science Group, IPR2017-01285
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`F O R T H E P E T I T I O N E R S :
` T h o m a s A . R a m m e r , I I
` S C H I F F H A R D I N , L L P
` 2 3 3 S . W a c k e r D r i v e , S u i t e 6 6 0 0
` C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 6
` ( 3 1 2 ) 2 5 8 - 5 5 3 7
` E - m a i l : t r a m m e r @ s c h i f f h a r d i n . c o m
`
` S t a c i e R . H a r t m a n
` S C H I F F H A R D I N , L L P
` 2 3 3 S . W a c k e r D r i v e , S u i t e 6 6 0 0
` C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 0 6
` ( 3 1 2 ) 2 5 8 - 5 5 3 7
` E - m a i l : s h a r t m a n @ s c h i f f h a r d i n . c o m
`
`F O R T H E P A T E N T O W N E R :
` E r i c D . H a y e s
` K I R K L A N D & E L L I S , L L P
` 3 0 0 N o r t h L a S a l l e
` C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 6 0 6 5 4
` ( 3 1 2 ) 8 6 2 - 2 4 8 0
` E - m a i l : e r i c . h a y e s @ k i r k l a n d . c o m
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1 0
`1 1
`1 2
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`1 7
`1 8
`1 9
`2 0
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`2 4
`2 5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
` T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
`
` Page
`
`APPEARANCES...................................... 2
`
`DR. ERIC BRETSCHNEIDER
`
` Examination by Mr. Rammer..................... 5
`
`Signature and Changes............................ 117
`
`Reporter's Certificate........................... 119
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`Exhibit No. Description Page
`
`Exhibit No. 1 United States Patent 9
`
` Patent No. US 8,201,968 B2
`
`Exhibit No. 2 United States Patent 12
`
` Patent No. US 8,967,844 B2
`
`Exhibit No. 3 United States Patent 13
`
` Patent No. US 8,672,518 B2
`
`Exhibit No. 4 Declaration of Eric Bretschneider, 31
`
` Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` DR. ERIC BRETSCHNEIDER,
`
`having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. RAMMER:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Bretschneider.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. My name is Tom Rammer from the law firm of Schiff
`
`Hardin here on behalf of the Petitioner Technical
`
`Consumer Products, Inc., Nicor, Inc., and Amax Lighting.
`
`With me is Stacie Hartman, also from Schiff Hardin.
`
`Would you please state your name and address for the
`
`record, please?
`
` A. Eric Collin Bretschneider, 2622 Westwind Drive,
`
`Corinth, Texas 76210.
`
` Q. And have you given a deposition previously?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. I'd like to briefly review a few of the
`
`procedures if that's all right with you?
`
` A. That's fine.
`
` Q. You understand that the court reporter here is
`
`recording everything that we say, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And so you understand that you need to answer
`
`every question verbally?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Because the court reporter is taking down
`
`everything that we say, it's important that we not talk
`
`over each other. If you'll commit to do that, I'll
`
`commit to do the same. Okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. To the best of your abilities. At times
`
`Mr. Hayes may object, but unless he instructs you not to
`
`answer and is acting as your counsel in doing so, you
`
`still need to answer the questions. You understand?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. If you don't hear my question, please let me know
`
`and I'll try to repeat it. Okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. If you don't understand a question, just let me
`
`know and I'll try to clarify it for you. Okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` MR. RAMMER: Would you like to put your name
`
`on the record?
`
` MR. HAYES: Eric Hayes on behalf of LSG.
`
`Thank you.
`
` MR. RAMMER: My apologies. Are you
`
`representing Dr. Bretschneider in this deposition?
`
` MR. HAYES: No. He's a third party
`
`independent expert.
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
` MR. RAMMER: Okay.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Rammer) Dr. Bretschneider, if you do
`
`answer a question that I ask, I will assume that you've
`
`understood the question. Is that a fair way to proceed?
`
` A. Understood.
`
` Q. And you understand that when I ask a question, I
`
`am entitled to your best recollection?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you do understand that you are here under
`
`oath?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And is there any reason you can't give complete
`
`and truthful answers today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. If you do need a break, let me know. I just ask
`
`that we don't take a break while there's a question
`
`pending. And I'll try to take a break every hour or so,
`
`but let me know if you need another break in the
`
`meantime.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. You understand that you are here because Lighting
`
`Science Group Corp. has offered you as an expert, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Is it all right if we refer to Lighting Science
`
`Group Corp. as LSG today?
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Have you prepared for this deposition?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How did you prepare for this deposition?
`
` A. I --
`
` MR. HAYES: I caution you not to disclose
`
`the substance of any of our communication or identify
`
`any of the documents that you've looked at.
`
` A. I reviewed my declaration and the IPR documents.
`
` Q. Which -- you said you reviewed the IPR documents?
`
` A. I -- without referring to my declaration, there
`
`were three, and I'm not going to try to recall the
`
`numbers from memory.
`
` Q. There were three -- three what?
`
` A. IPR.
`
` Q. Okay. So you reviewed documents from three IPRs?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And how did you decide which documents to
`
`review?
`
` A. The ones that I referenced in my declaration or
`
`that were referenced in the IPR documents.
`
` Q. When you say IPR documents, do you mean the
`
`petitions for IPR?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do you mean any other documents except for the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`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
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`three IPR petitions involved in this case?
`
` A. Also, not recently, but in preparation of my
`
`declaration, obviously the report from the other expert.
`
` Q. Did you review any reports or declarations from
`
`another expert in preparing for your deposition today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you meet with anyone to prepare for this
`
`deposition?
`
` A. I met with Mr. Hayes yesterday.
`
` Q. Anybody else?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And about how long did you meet with Mr. Hayes
`
`yesterday?
`
` A. About four hours.
`
` (Exhibit No. 1 marked.)
`
` Q. I'd like to hand you what has been marked as
`
`Exhibit 1. Do you recognize this document?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. And what is this document?
`
` A. This is what has been referred to as the 968
`
`patent.
`
` Q. Okay. So I will also refer to this as the 968
`
`patent if that's all right with you.
`
` A. That's fine.
`
` Q. And you do you understand this to be one of the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`patents at issue in these IPRs?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How would you describe the purported invention of
`
`the 968 patent?
`
` A. In my terms, it's a compact luminaire that's
`
`designed to be installed in a variety of different
`
`applications. In one sense, it's a bridge product. It
`
`functions as two different classes of luminaires.
`
` Q. And what are those two classes?
`
` A. A recess canned fixture and also a ceiling
`
`mounted fixture.
`
` MR. RAMMER: Could we take a break for just
`
`a moment.
`
` (Break taken from 10:09 to 10:13.)
`
` Q. (By Mr. Rammer) When we left off, we were
`
`discussing that -- the inventive part in the 968 patent.
`
`You said it was a compact luminaire designed to be
`
`installed in different applications; is that correct?
`
` MR. HAYES: I'll object to the extent that's
`
`not the testimony that the witness gave.
`
` A. To be clear, it functioned as two different
`
`classes of fixture.
`
` Q. Is the 968 patent covering any specific
`
`technological advance?
`
` MR. HAYES: Objection; vague.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. It -- it depends on what you want to class as a
`
`technological advance. It was designed from the
`
`beginning to minimize the volume, if you will, of a
`
`fixture, the amount of materials used. It's somewhat
`
`unique in that it is extremely low profile and it
`
`doesn't have typical heat sink or heat dissipation
`
`features that you would have found on other products at
`
`the time.
`
` Q. So would you -- is it a -- I'm sorry. Is the 968
`
`patent covering a concept of the system?
`
` A. If you want to go -- the claims define what it's
`
`covering. You just asked me to give a general category
`
`of what I see is different when I look at it.
`
` Q. Okay. You've already told me what you see is
`
`different when you look at the claims of the 968 patent?
`
` A. When I look at it -- you asked what I saw that
`
`was different, what was inventive. Like I said, there
`
`were a few aspects. It was the first product that
`
`worked in two different lighting niches or as two
`
`different types of products. As I outlined in my
`
`declaration, you have ceiling mounted fixtures which
`
`attach to the ceiling and everything is below. You have
`
`recessed can fixtures in which everything is above the
`
`plane of the ceiling. Nothing worked in both categories
`
`before. That's one part. And then it's also making
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`this extremely compact lightsource.
`
` Q. Is there anything else that you would think that
`
`you would consider inventive about the 968 patent
`
`invention?
`
` A. I can read through it. There are a lot of finer
`
`details and points. If you want me to summarize, that's
`
`the easiest where I can read through the patent and
`
`start calling out different sections, but that might
`
`take some time.
`
` (Exhibit No. 2 marked.)
`
` Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit 2.
`
`Do you recognize this document?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` Q. And what is this document?
`
` A. This is what's been referred to as the 844
`
`patent.
`
` Q. And you understand this to be one of the patents
`
`at issue in these IPRs, yes?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How would you describe the purported invention of
`
`the 844 patent?
`
` A. It's a continuation of the 968 patent. And in my
`
`description, it would be further defining and refining
`
`how it's -- the fixture is installed.
`
` Q. When you say it's a continuation of the 94 -- I'm
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`sorry, a continuation of the 968 patent, do you mean
`
`conceptually or are you using continuation as a term of
`
`art?
`
` A. In my mind, it's part of the same family. It's
`
`the same basic technology. In the 968, you would have
`
`the concept. The 844, as I said, is more getting to the
`
`specifics of how it's installed, how it's used.
`
` Q. So other than further refining how the fixture is
`
`installed and how is it used, is there any other
`
`difference from the purported invention of the 968
`
`patent?
`
` A. Without doing a direct comparison or referring to
`
`my declaration, I'll say that that's a summary. There
`
`are undoubtedly other details.
`
` (Exhibit No. 3 marked.)
`
` Q. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as
`
`Exhibit 3, and do you recognize this document?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And what is this document?
`
` A. This is the 518 patent.
`
` Q. And you understand this to be one of the patents
`
`at issue in these IPRs, yes?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. How would you describe the purported invention of
`
`the 518 patent?
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. This is in the same family of technology. And
`
`again, at a high level, it's dealing with issues and
`
`methods to install the fixture.
`
` Q. When you say the fixture, do you mean the same
`
`fixture that was generally described by the 968 and 844
`
`patent?
`
` A. The fixture or luminaire. You can use either
`
`term.
`
` Q. Is there any difference in a purported invention
`
`of the 518 patent from the purported invention of the
`
`968 or 844 patents?
`
` A. Again, the 518 is dealing to a large extent with
`
`installation issues. If you look at the 84 -- sorry,
`
`the 968 patent, it's dealing with the fixture itself.
`
`The 844 is dealing with different aspects of
`
`installation.
`
` Q. You're familiar with the claims that are at issue
`
`in these IPRs?
`
` A. I don't have them memorized, but yes, I'm
`
`familiar with them.
`
` Q. But you have an understanding of what the claims
`
`cover, if not specifically, which numbers?
`
` A. It's easier if I refer to my report just because
`
`it's been a while since I wrote it.
`
` Q. Are any of the claims at issue in these three --
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`these three patents limited to luminaires with certain
`
`lumens?
`
` A. There's not, to my recollection, a required
`
`number of lumens, but when you look at the descriptions
`
`of how it's used, there are going to be a minimum number
`
`of lumens or it ceases to work in that application.
`
` Q. What -- what application are the luminaires of
`
`these three patents limited to?
`
` A. They're not specifically limited, but there are
`
`descriptions when you're installing. You're installing
`
`it as a recessed can fixture or a ceiling mounted
`
`fixture. And two lumens would be a night light and you
`
`wouldn't bother with a recessed can fixture. You are
`
`going to be looking on the order of 600 lumens or higher
`
`for them to function. So anyone in the lighting
`
`industry who is reviewing these patents is seeing the
`
`installation environment is going to understand that the
`
`approximate output is going to be on that order or
`
`higher.
`
` Q. And that's a limitation you're reading in from
`
`the specification?
`
` A. Yes. If you read the specification, then it
`
`becomes clear that you have to have that.
`
` Q. That is not a limitation that is expressed in any
`
`of the claims, correct?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. I don't believe that is in any of the claims.
`
` Q. The claims of all three of these patents are not
`
`limited to luminaires that operate with a certain
`
`efficiency, right?
`
` MR. HAYES: Objection; vague.
`
` A. There's not an efficiency number, but it would be
`
`one thing that would need to be considered. And if you
`
`were to get this to work, I could -- for some reason, if
`
`I chose extremely low efficiencies, I would be
`
`generating a great deal of heat relative to the amount
`
`of light produced and I wouldn't have anything useful.
`
` Q. Again, there's no express limitation in any of
`
`the claims of the three patents for a level of
`
`efficiency, right?
`
` MR. HAYES: Objection; vague.
`
` A. No, not in the claims.
`
` Q. The claims are not limited to luminaires that
`
`have a certain lifetime, right?
`
` A. At the time of the patent, the primary interest
`
`if someone was looking at LED-based lighting was
`
`lifetime, so there's an expectation that it will have a
`
`good lifetime in order -- because of the cost of LEDs --
`
`LED-based fixtures were much more expensive than their
`
`traditional technology counterparts. They're still more
`
`expensive today. So to be able to earn your money back,
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`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
`
`if you will, there was a certain lifetime and efficiency
`
`that needed to be achieved. Are those numbers here?
`
`No. But again, in the time frame, you are expecting a
`
`certain level of efficiency and especially lifetime. If
`
`it doesn't last long enough, you are literally throwing
`
`money away.
`
` Q. So just to be clear, there's no limitation in the
`
`claims of these patents for a particular lifetime of the
`
`fixture?
`
` MR. HAYES: Objection; asked and answered.
`
` A. There's not an explicit lifetime in the claims.
`
` Q. Would a fixture that met all the limitations of
`
`any one of these claims, but only lasted a day, still
`
`infringe these -- would it still infringe that claim?
`
` A. I really can't answer that because I need some
`
`more details. It's a very peculiar question, so I'm
`
`kind of struggling to understand how something would be
`
`designed that way.
`
` Q. Well, let's look at the 968 patent in claim one.
`
`When you get there, just let me know. So I'd like you
`
`to imagine a luminaire that meets all the limitations of
`
`claim one of the 968 patent, but it dies in one day.
`
`Would that infringe claim one of the 968 patent?
`
` A. I believe it would infringe, but I'm still
`
`struggling how anyone could do that and stay in
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`business. It would be my favorite kind of competitor.
`
` Q. Sure. Just to be clear, there's no limitation in
`
`claim one of the 968 patent that the luminaire be
`
`commercially successful, right?
`
` A. I'm just saying your -- there's no requirement
`
`there. But again, when I look at it and read the claim
`
`and realize it's an LED-based lighting fixture, you're
`
`going to something that's very counterintuitive and
`
`anyone in the lighting industry is going to struggle
`
`with.
`
` Q. With selling it?
`
` A. With understanding it.
`
` Q. What about a luminaire that met all the
`
`limitations of claim one of the 968 patent but only had
`
`two lumens of light output, would that still infringe
`
`claim one of the 968 patent?
`
` A. I really haven't considered that type of scenario
`
`and I'm struggling because if I just read the claim,
`
`then I have to ignore the specification and the two are
`
`linked. So if you hand someone just the claim, they
`
`could say yes. But since the claim is related to the
`
`specification, they would spend a lot of time
`
`considering the specification, and that's where I'm
`
`uncomfortable giving an answer off the cuff.
`
` Q. Okay. We already agreed that there's no express
`
`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
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`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
`
`requirement for a certain number of lumens for claim one
`
`of the 968 patent. Do you remember that?
`
` A. Claim one does not give a minimum lumen
`
`requirement.
`
` Q. And so all I'm asking is if there's a luminaire
`
`that has all the limitations of claim one of the 968
`
`patent but has a very low lumen output, less than
`
`600 lumens, would that infringe claim one of the 968
`
`patent?
`
` MR. HAYES: It's been asked and answered.
`
` A. Again, I have to look at the rest of the
`
`specification, and I haven't reviewed the specification
`
`of the patent with that question in mind.
`
` Q. Well, what if it had -- let me ask the whole
`
`question. Looking at claim one of the 968 patent, a
`
`luminaire that meets all of the requirements of claim
`
`one but has an extra heat sink attached to it, would
`
`that still infringe claim one of the 968 patent?
`
` A. What you've just asked is a really strange
`
`question because you asked if something that doesn't
`
`fall under the claims infringes on the claims. Once you
`
`attach another component to it, it's a different
`
`fixture. You've done something else to it, and that's
`
`where I'm struggling. If I take something that's an
`
`invention and I change it, is it still the invention, is
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`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
`
`I think what you asked, but you've changed it in a way
`
`that it doesn't meet the claims.
`
` Q. What I'm actually trying to understand is your
`
`understanding of the claims. And so if -- if there's a
`
`luminaire that meets all of the limitations of claim one
`
`of the 968 patent, it has every -- all the limitations
`
`that are described in there, but something else is added
`
`on to it, for instance, a heat sink or maybe a second
`
`optic, would that meet the limitations -- or, I'm sorry,
`
`would it infringe claim one of the 968 patent?
`
` MR. HAYES: Objection; form, incomplete
`
`hypothetical.
`
` A. Well, what you've just asked, since claim one
`
`includes the heat sink and includes the heat sink in the
`
`H over D ratio, the height and outside dimension, I
`
`can't answer that because I don't know how you've
`
`changed it. Does it still meet that requirement, yes or
`
`no? I don't know. You haven't given me enough
`
`information.
`
` Q. If it did still meet that limitation as -- in
`
`this hypothetical, it meets all of the limitations. Let
`
`me ask a different question. Are you familiar with
`
`the -- with the concept of an open patent claim versus a
`
`closed patent claim?
`
` A. I don't believe I've heard that distinction
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`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. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`discussed.
`
` Q. Did you discuss with -- at any time what the word
`
`comprising means in construing the claim?
`
` MR. HAYES: You asked did he discuss, and
`
`I'll instruct him not to answer the question.
`
` MR. RAMMER: On what basis since you're not
`
`representing him?
`
` MR. HAYES: So I think the rule -- federal
`
`rules protect communications, drafts and whatnot of
`
`experts.
`
` MR. RAMMER: The federal rules protect
`
`privileged communications. But if he's not being
`
`represented by counsel, then there's no privilege there.
`
` MR. HAYES: I thought there's a federal rule
`
`that protects drafts, communications and whatnot with
`
`experts, consultants --
`
` MR. RAMMER: If they're being --
`
` MR. HAYES: -- whether or not they're
`
`represented or not.
`
` MR. RAMMER: I disagree for the record.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Rammer) Let me ask --
`
` MR. RAMMER: I disagree for the record and
`
`I'm happy to get into that.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Rammer) Let me ask a little more
`
`generally. Have you ever discussed with somebody what
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`the word comprising means in a patent claim?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. What is your understanding of what
`
`comprising means in a patent claim?
`
` MR. HAYES: You should probably figure out
`
`whoever you discussed that with, they are not -- whether
`
`or not they were your lawyer, right, in whatever
`
`context. I mean, outside of discussions with me, you
`
`should think about whether those discussions were with a
`
`lawyer, and if so, then you should think about whether
`
`or not you can answer that. Right? I mean, that's what
`
`I'll say.
`
` A. Outside of the context of discussions with
`
`attorneys, how the frame -- or how the term comprising
`
`is used in patent claim language, I have not discussed.
`
` Q. And you're not -- let me ask if you are not going
`
`to answer that question because of a conversation or
`
`because you don't want to reveal information that you
`
`think might be privileged conversations with the
`
`attorney sitting at the table here today?
`
` A. Again, my discussions with that have always been
`
`with counsel for or an attorney related to one matter or
`
`another. This isn't my first time serving as an expert
`
`witness.
`
` MR. RAMMER: For the record, I don't think
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`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
`
`that any conversation he had with you is privileged.
`
`Moreover, I'm asking is -- how the expert is
`
`interpreting the claims and just trying to get at it
`
`that way. If we have to come back to talk about this
`
`later, then we can talk about that. Okay?
`
` MR. HAYES: Sure.
`
` Q. (By Mr. Rammer) I believe -- I'm sorry,
`
`Dr. Bretschneider, I will try to get back to the meat of
`
`the matter here. I believe you said earlier that if you
`
`added anything to the luminaire as described by the
`
`claims, it would no longer be part of the invention of
`
`the 968 patent. Is that accurate?
`
` A. You had asked if something meets all the claims
`
`and then you changed it, and where I had the issue is
`
`that you -- the term you used for the change for the
`
`modification is actually within the claim. You said if
`
`I have a fixture that meets all the requirements of
`
`claim one and I add an extra heat sink, I'm looking at
`
`it and it's clear where it says, wherein the heat
`
`spreader, the heat sink and outer optic in combination.
`
`So when you attach a heat sink to another heat sink, I
`
`have to look at that entire combination, and you haven't
`
`given me enough details on that second heat sink to say
`
`does it still meet the claim restrictions or not.
`
` Q. Let's -- let's move on and talk a bit about the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`LED market in general. When -- when were LEDs first
`
`used in the consumer lighting market?
`
` A. Which aspect of the consumer lighting market?
`
` Q. Well, let's just start very generally and we can
`
`narrow it down after that.
`
` A. For where they were providing illumination would
`
`be around 1998 --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- through 1999.
`
` Q. And what do you mean by providing illumination?
`
` A. They were being used for exit sign applications.
`
` Q. And this is a different application from the LED
`
`in my dad's stereo?
`
` A. Excuse me?
`
` Q. Like the LED light that was on my dad's stereo,
`
`this is a different application?
`
` A. Yes. That would be an indicator application, and
`
`indicator would not fall under the jurisdiction of
`
`lighting or illumination.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` MR. HAYES: You're making me feel old.
`
` MR. RAMMER: It was on mine, too.
`
` Q. Illumination and lighting, are those the phrases
`
`that you were using to describe things other than the
`
`indicator application of LEDs?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 24
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` A. LEDs originally were used in instrumentation for
`
`a variety of things, and in some cases those were closed
`
`and none of the light produced by the LEDs ever got out,
`
`so I'm ignoring those. As indicators is something on or
`
`off, yes, they were used. That was one of the first
`
`applications. Then you actually have displays which,
`
`depending on the age of people, if they remember
`
`calculators with a Pulsar digital watch, that was a
`
`display application. They produced light, someone saw
`
`it, but the intent wasn't to illuminate a space. It was
`
`an advanced version of an indicator. You just had a lot
`
`of them that let you see something as a number or
`
`letter.
`
` Q. Okay. Just to make -- I -- what I want to do is
`
`make sure we agree on the terminology. I'm interested
`
`in illumination and lighting for the rest of the day,
`
`and so if I'm -- if I say something that is confusing or
`
`doesn't go towards illumination or lighting, just let me
`
`know so we can clarify that question. Okay?
`
` A. Okay. Illumination tells someone in the industry
`
`it is actually -- it's for lighting. It's not a
`
`display.
`
` Q. Thank you. Okay. So 1998 to 1999 was the first
`
`time that LEDs were used for illumination, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 25
`
`
`
`Job No. 2878915
`
`Dr. Eric Bretschneider - April 24, 2018
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. When was the first time white light LEDs
`
`were readily available for illumination purposes?
`
` A. There's a difference between readily available.
`
`And where I have some difficulty with it, the white LEDs
`
`of the class we see today or the type we see today, the
`
`construction, those were released in 1996. The entire
`
`LED industry was small at the time, so what they
`
`considered as this is a commercial product versus now is
`
`very different. The light output was very low. When it
`
`made enough economic sense -- which is the other thing
`
`as well because the cost of the first LEDs was
`
`extraordinarily high. Around 2003, I would say, is when
`
`illumination quality or class LEDs were readily
`
`available. Before that time point, you could get white
`
`LEDs. You could order a million of them. You could
`
`build something, but you would never sell it unless it
`
`was to the military or the government.
`
` Q. Okay. So in 2003 was when white light LEDs were
`
`a viable product for re