Job No. 2878915
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
