Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________
`
`1
`
` INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` ETHICON, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
` Case IPR2018-01247 and Case IPR2018-01254
` U.S. Patent No. 8,479,969
`
` PATENT OWNER'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
` AUGUST 12, 2019
` Phoenix, Arizona
` 9:41 A.M.
`
`Reporter: Sommer E. Greene, RPR, CRR, RMR
`Job No. 47323B
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.001
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ______________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _____________
`
`1
`
` INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` ETHICON, LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
` Case IPR2018-01247 and Case IPR2018-01254
` U.S. Patent No. 8,479,969
`
` PATENT OWNER'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION of
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
` AUGUST 12, 2019
` Phoenix, Arizona
` 9:41 A.M.
`
`Reporter: Sommer E. Greene, RPR, CRR, RMR
`Job No. 47323B
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.001
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` For Petitioner:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` STEVEN R. KATZ, ESQ.
` One Marina Park Drive
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210-1878
` 617.542.5070
` Katz@fr.com
`
` For Patent Owner:
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
` CHRISTOPHER PEPE, ESQ.
` ANISH DESAI, ESQ.
` 767 Fifth Avenue
` New York, New York 10153-0119
` 212.310.8730
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.002
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`3
`
` I N D E X
`
`WITNESS: BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
`
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`
`MR. DESAI.......................................5
`MR. KATZ........................................44
`
` * * *
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.003
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`4
`
` INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
` EXHIBIT MARKED
`
`Exhibit 1018 Patent 6, 132,368 25
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.004
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
` PHOENIX, ARIZONA;
` AUGUST 12, 2019; 9:41 A.M.
`
`5
`
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, testifies as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. DESAI:
` Q. Okay. Dr. Knodel, I'm handing you the copy of
` the declaration -- the supplemental declaration you
` submitted in the two of the '969 IPRs.
` A. Yes.
` Q. It's the 1247 and 1254 IPRs.
` A. Right.
` Q. This is a copy for you. Okay. Let me ask you,
` what did you prepare -- what did you do to prepare for
` the deposition in the '969 IPRs?
` A. So I read the -- my supplemental declaration,
` and I read one of the opinions -- I can't remember
` which -- which one it was. But one of the -- one of the
` opinions I read and went through parts of the other one
` by Ethicon's experts.
` Q. Okay. Do you recall which one -- was it --
` when you say you read one of them, was it -- do you
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.005
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`6
`
` recall if that was the Fengelman declaration?
` A. It was the Fengelman declaration that I read.
` I see them now here written. And I review portions of
` the Awtar declaration.
` Q. A-w-t-a-r.
` All right. Did you do anything else besides
` that?
` A. That was pretty much it. Oh, I apologize.
` I -- I did look back at the Tierney reference and the
` references that -- that are included in Tierney, I looked
` at portions of that as well.
` Q. The Tierney reference is not mentioned in your
` supplemental declaration?
` A. No. I just wanted to remind myself that I --
` you know, that the -- the topic of tactile feedback and
` just wanted to make sure I was -- just looked at those
` things again.
` Q. Okay. Besides Tierney, did you review anything
` else?
` A. Like I say, just the, you know, one other
` references referred to in Tierney, '666.
` Q. Is that -- is that referenced in your
` supplemental declaration?
` A. No. Like I say, it was not part of -- my
` supplemental declaration was just more going back to my
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.006
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`7
`
` thinking when I did the Anderson gee owe initial
` declarations.
` Q. Okay. What experience do you have with tactile
` feedback in robotic systems?
` A. Are you asking what experience do I have of
` using robotic systems, tactile feedback?
` Q. What experience do you have at all with respect
` to tactile feedback in robotic systems?
` MR. KATZ: And I'll just caution you that
` this is an open deposition, so if you have any
` information that's confidential, just note that.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. I have considered and
` thought about the need for tactile feedback in robotic
` systems in -- as an engineering requirement.
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: When was this?
` A. In my consulting practice.
` Q. Do you have a time frame?
` A. Within the last ten years.
` Q. Over the course of the last ten years
` or sometime in those --
` A. At some time during the last ten years, I have
` considered that, yes.
` Q. Could you be more specific?
` A. I cannot.
` Q. What was the reason for your consideration of
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.007
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`8
`
` the need for tactile feedback in robotic systems?
` A. Just -- just the typical needs of surgical
` devices and -- and just being able to place them
` accurately, and tactile feedback gives you an idea of,
` you know, if you're dealing with something that's rigid,
` difficult to compress, those kind of things.
` Q. When you say the need for tactile feedback in
` robotic systems, what do you mean?
` A. There are sometimes when you want tactile
` feedback, and so it can become -- so then I use the term
` need because it's very desirable feedback to have it for
` the surgeon, yeah.
` Q. Are you -- who are you consulting for --
` A. I can't say the names of the companies.
` Q. You can't tell us the time frame and you can't
` tell us who?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. How long did this consulting last on this
` topic?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was it for a company that was developing a
` robotic system? Or was it for a company that was making
` a robotic tool?
` A. They had both.
` Q. Is there anything that you've put forward in
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.008
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`9
`
` your declarations that the board can use to assess your
` experience in tactile feedback in robotic systems?
` A. I've put forth my experience and my training as
` an engineer. So I guess that's what they have to assess
` my experience.
` Q. Aside from this -- was this one consulting --
` so this -- I want to focus on this work you were doing
` that involved, in your words, consideration of the need
` for tactile feedback. That was -- those are your words,
` I think.
` A. Right.
` Q. And was this one consulting project?
` A. I don't -- I believe it was two different
` consulting projects where I was considering the tactile
` feedback that would be available or could be available in
` a design.
` Q. Okay. And can you give me more details about
` what you were considering?
` A. Um, I -- no. I don't know. I don't know
` whether I understand your question or what you're trying
` to get at, that the forces would be -- that the surgeon
` would be feeling, would -- would they be able to feel
` those forces.
` Q. Okay. Did you actually do any work in the
` development of a tactile feedback?
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.009
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`10
`
` A. For a robot, no.
` Q. So you've never done that before?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. So this -- when you were talking about
` considering the need in this consulting project or
` projects, you were just talking about whether or not it
` would be desirable to have?
` A. Whether or not it would be -- whether the
` device that I was working on would be amenable to
` providing that to the --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- to the surgeon.
` Q. And as far as experience with designing or
` developing tactile feedback in robotic systems, is it
` fair to say that you have no experience there?
` A. It is fair to say I have no experience on the
` robotic side of it.
` Q. Well, do you have experience with developing
` tactile feedback for tools for robotic systems?
` A. I think that's what I just said.
` Q. It wasn't clear from your answer. That's all.
` A. Okay. Yeah, so when designing tools for
` robotic systems, I have had to give consideration to
` tactile feedback as part of that design.
` Q. Okay. So then -- but the question is, have you
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.010
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`11
`
` actually -- aside from considering whether or not you
` would want it for a tool, have you actually done any
` design or development of a tactile feedback system for a
` robotic tool?
` A. I have designed robotic tools that you could
` sense -- the force could be sensed by the robot, but I
` did not design the system on the robot to do that
` sensing. Just this force that is being applied is
` sensible.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Maybe we should go back and talk about what we
` mean by tactile feedback.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I think in the context of the declaration that
` is admitted in the '969 IPRs, it's -- my understanding is
` tactile feedback with respect to, you know, a tool in a
` robotic system is feedback that the surgeon can -- can
` sense or feel.
` A. I understand that, yes.
` Q. Okay. Have you had any experience designing
` that type of system?
` A. Not at the surgeon's hand, no.
` Q. Okay. So then you're -- you're limiting it to
` not in the surgeon's hands. So what experience did you
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.011
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`12
`
` have?
` MR. KATZ: I'll say objection. Asked and
` answered.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm just trying to
` differentiate between you could design a device that
` there's no way that you could ever get that signal back
` to the surgeon's hands, or you could design a device
` where you could, the way it -- the way it transmits the
` force, what it does, if it has a CO2 cartridge in it and
` you fire that, there's no way that's going to get to the
` surgeon's hands. That's what I'm saying.
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: Okay.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. So you said I have designed robotic
` tools that you could sense the force could be sensed by
` the robot.
` A. Right.
` Q. But I did not design the system on the robot to
` do that sensing.
` A. Okay.
` Q. What kind of tools were they?
` A. It's confidential.
` Q. The kind of tool is confidential?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was this?
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.012
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`13
`
` A. I've already answered that question.
` Q. No, not specifically these robotic tools.
` A. This is -- this is the consulting work that I
` mentioned over -- during the course over the last ten
` years, I have had contracts where I was developing things
` for robots.
` Q. Okay. When in the last ten years?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was it in 2009?
` MR. KATZ: Objection to form. Asked and
` answered. Badgering the witness.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know.
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: Was it an endo cutter?
` A. I'm not disclosing in this -- in this format
` the nature of the products that I designed for companies
` under a confidentiality agreement.
` Q. Is it any of the companies that are involved in
` this case?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Do you know if the work you did resulted
` in a commercial device that was a robotic tool that
` provided feedback to the surgeon?
` A. I'm not aware.
` Q. Have you ever worked on the design of a linear
` cutter for robotic system?
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.013
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`14
`
` A. No.
` Q. So all of the linear cutters that you have
` worked on or with were hand-held. Is that right?
` A. Yes. My work at Ethicon Endo-Surgery focused
` on hand-held endoscopic linear cutters, yes.
` Q. Okay. You've done other work outside of
` Ethicon --
` A. Yeah.
` Q. -- so I was asking in general, all of the work
` you've done on linear cutters over the course of your
` career were on hand-held. Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. All right.
` A. To the best of my recollection.
` Q. And I think you might have asked in the
` previous deposition. All of the hand -- the hand-held
` linear cutters that you worked on were manually actuated
` with triggers and didn't involve power drive systems. Is
` that right?
` A. Not power drives, yeah.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Not power drive systems.
` Q. And so all of the instruments that you've --
` the linear cutter instruments that you've worked on, the
` surgeon had the instrument in their hands and was able to
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.014
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`15
` feel the forces associated with clamping and firing. Is
` that right?
` A. Sorry. I have to think back.
` Q. Yeah.
` A. There were some CO2-powered stuff that I'm
` trying to remember if it was exactly a linear cutter or
` not. But let's -- to the best of my recollection,
` everything -- any linear cutter that I designed was
` manually actuated.
` Q. Right. And to be more clear about manually
` actuated, it didn't involve a power drive system. Right?
` Because power drive can also be manual actuated. That's
` why the confusion.
` A. So actually -- okay. Then I -- I'm sorry. No.
` As I've had more time to think, no. I have done a
` stapler that was CO2 actuated. I have done.
` Q. What does that mean?
` A. It means it has a CO2 cartridge in it, and what
` you do to actuate it is you -- initially you arm the
` device, you puncture the CO2 and then when you position
` it in -- this one had a manual clamp and then a
` secondary -- you push a button and the CO2 fires, and it
` deploys the staples.
` Q. When did you do that? When did you work on
` that?
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.015
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`16
`
` A. I worked on that in the -- 2005, early 2000s
` time frame.
` Q. And that was at Ethicon?
` A. No. It was at Cardica.
` Q. Okay. And was that ever something that made it
` to market?
` A. It went to clinical trials, et cetera, and some
` limited work in Europe. It was not released, to my
` knowledge, in the US.
` Q. You have any understanding as to why not?
` A. No. I don't recall why we made that decision.
` Q. Okay. Are you aware of any CO2 -- I guess it's
` called CO2-driven endo cutters that --
` A. Oh, yeah.
` Q. -- made it to market?
` A. Absolutely.
` Q. Okay.
` A. The GA60 was a huge product for US Surgical at
` the time that I was at Ethicon.
` Q. Okay.
` A. That was CO2 powered.
` Q. Got it.
` A. It was manually clamped, and you actuated an
` actuator on the back, and that would fire the device.
` Q. Have you ever discussed with any surgeons the
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.016
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`17
`
` problems associated with removing a linear cutter from
` their hand?
` A. Removing a linear cutter from their hand?
` Q. Yeah.
` A. No.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Not that I recall.
` Q. So why don't we take a look at paragraph 5 in
` your declaration.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And you cite to some lines here in the '969
` patent. Do you see that?
` A. I do.
` Q. And the quote you have here, as I read it,
` relates to providing indication to the surgeon of closure
` of the anvil. Is that right?
` A. The specific quote is related to closure of the
` anvil.
` Q. Right. It's some type of feedback in the form
` of a light audible sound or tactile feedback to indicate
` closure of the anvil. Right?
` A. (Witness reading.)
` Yes, it is.
` Q. And so that has nothing whatsoever to do with
` passive articulation. Right?
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.017
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`18
`
` A. It has to do with the tactile feedback for
` closing anvil.
` Q. Which has nothing to do with passive
` articulation. Right?
` A. This sentence does not relate to passive
` articulation. That's right.
` Q. All right. And you would agree that the '969
` patent actually doesn't disclose passive articulation.
` Right?
` A. '969 patent? Right, that's correct. Sorry.
` Q. And in fact, a person that's skilled in the art
` reading the '969 patent would understand it discloses
` only active articulation joints. Right?
` A. I'd have to look at '969.
` Q. I can hand it to you. I have it. There you
` go.
` MR. KATZ: Thank you.
` THE WITNESS: This should just take a
` minute.
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: Yeah.
` A. I mean, the simple answer is I don't recall
` whether it -- whether inside of this document it ever
` refers to passive articulation. We could look at the
` figures and see if it shows anything, but it would be a
` lot for me to go through it and try to figure out if --
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.018
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`19
` at any point in here or the references that it cites, if
` it ever talks to passive articulation. I can't say.
` Q. Well, I'm not -- we're not going to go through
` the references that are cited.
` A. Okay.
` Q. That has nothing to do with my question.
` So I guess sitting here today, you don't
` know whether or not the '969 patent discloses a passive
` articulation joint?
` A. I don't recall whether at some point somewhere
` in there it mentions it or not. I don't recall.
` Q. All right. You know, why don't you take a look
` at just a couple of the figures and see if maybe we can
` narrow this down a bit.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Take a look at figure 32.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. All right. And that's -- that is showing at
` least in part the -- an articulation joint. Right?
` A. It is.
` Q. And you understand that's an active
` articulation joint. Right?
` A. I don't believe you can tell that from 32 by
` itself.
` Q. Okay.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.019
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`20
`
` A. All it shows it there are linkages that move,
` but you don't know whether those move because they became
` unlocked back at the handle and then they could be moved
` and then locked again. You can't tell -- you can't
` generally tell from the joint whether it's active or
` passive.
` Q. Okay.
` A. You have to look at the control.
` Q. In forming your opinions in this case about the
` '969 patent, did you gain an understanding of whether or
` not the '969 patent discloses passive articulation
` joints?
` A. I don't recall whether --
` Q. You never looked for that?
` A. I just don't recall if I did or I didn't.
` Q. Okay. And sitting here today, you have no real
` view on that. Right?
` A. Sitting here today, I don't -- I'm hesitant to
` make a sweeping statement that this does not ever refer
` to passive articulation. I just don't recall if it does
` or not.
` Q. Okay. Have you ever been involved in the
` design of a passively articulating tool?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. Have you ever conducted an analysis of a
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.020
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`21
`
` passive articulating tool?
` A. At the time that I was at Ethicon, they were --
` they were introducing conceptually passive articulation,
` so I have discussed -- been talked to by engineers about
` what they were doing. It was a different team, so I -- I
` have heard discussions, they've -- I have had engineers
` explain to me what they were doing, how it was going to
` work and how cool it was.
` Q. Okay. Have you ever conducted any analysis of
` a passively articulating tool?
` A. I haven't analyzed it. I have -- I don't know
` exactly what you mean by analysis.
` Q. Okay. That's fine.
` A. Sorry.
` Q. Have you ever used a passively articulating
` tool?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was that?
` A. When they handed me a prototype at Ethicon.
` Q. Any idea the time frame?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Okay.
` A. It may have -- it may even not have been at the
` company. I may have been a consultant for them at the
` time. I don't recall.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.021
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`22
`
` Q. And I would assume you've never used a
` passively articulating tool in a surgery. Is that right?
` You are a doctor but not that kind of doctor?
` A. That is absolutely true.
` Q. Okay. And have you ever had any discussions
` with any surgeons about passively articulating tools?
` A. No.
` Q. Going back to your -- you said you've used a
` passively articulating tool and you said they handed me a
` prototype at Ethicon.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. Was it just one time or was that, like,
` multiple times or --
` A. I don't --
` Q. -- was it just kind of like --
` A. I don't recall the specifics. I just
` remembered that, you know, you -- you pull it back on
` a -- on its housing and then the front became limp and
` you can push it against something and you can let it go,
` and it would relock. I mean, I tried it out. I don't
` remember if I tried it out once or a dozen times. I just
` don't recall.
` Q. Have you ever seen a passively articulating
` robotic tool?
` A. I don't believe so.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.022
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`23
`
` Q. Why don't we take a look at paragraph 12.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. Well, before we do this, did you --
` you reviewed Dr. Awtar's and -- at some point, you
` reviewed Dr. Awtar's declaration and also Dr. Fengelman's
` deposition?
` A. I have reviewed Dr. Fengelman's. I have
` reviewed portions of Awtar. I didn't go through the
` whole thing.
` Q. I'm trying to distinguish between preparing for
` the deposition today. You wrote this -- this
` supplemental declaration.
` A. Right.
` Q. Before you wrote the supplemental declaration,
` did you read Dr. Awtar's entire declaration or did you
` just read parts of it?
` A. I think I just focused on parts of it. I don't
` recall exactly.
` Q. So you've never -- you have actually not read
` the whole thing?
` A. Cover to cover, I don't recall reading it cover
` to cover. I think I've focused on certain sections.
` Q. Okay. How did you decide what to focus on?
` A. In collaboration with -- you know, just looking
` at the topic of what we were discussing and...
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.023
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`24
`
` Q. Did you read the exhibits that were cited by
` Dr. Awtar and Dr. Fengelman, any of them?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Okay. And here in paragraph 12, you say -- you
` talk about robotic surgical instruments such as graspers
` are used without tactile feedback. Right?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And then because of that, in your opinion,
` well, if you can use those without tactile feedback,
` well, then you can use passive articulation without
` tactile feedback. Right? That's the conclusion you're
` drawing here?
` A. Yeah. They -- what I'm saying, yes, is that if
` you can use -- if -- if -- as Dr. Awtar discusses, that
` you can use these other devices without, why does tactile
` feedback become a requirement -- a critical requirement
` for actuating a passive articulation device.
` Q. You -- when you were talking about the passive
` articulation tool that you kind of said you maybe played
` with a little bit at Ethicon --
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. -- you said it was -- you pointed it was -- how
` cool it was is what you said. Right?
` A. Well, the engineers were telling me how cool it
` was, yes, yeah.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.024
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`25
` Q. Why hasn't passive articulation been used on
` robotic tools?
` A. I don't know.
` Q. All right. Going back to this issue about
` graspers --
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. -- are you aware that in the 2009 time frame,
` the lack of feedback was reported as a major limitation
` of robotic minimally invasive surgery?
` MR. KATZ: Objection to form.
` THE WITNESS: I was not aware of that.
` (Exhibit 1018 was marked for
` identification.)
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: I'll hand you Exhibit 2018.
` MR. KATZ: Thank you.
` THE WITNESS: I think --
` Q. BY MR. DESAI: Let me ask you a question about
` it first.
` A. I'm sorry.
` Q. If you have something to say about it, go
` ahead. I was going to ask you a question.
` A. I was just -- now that you handed it to me, I
` recall one of the -- I think one of the experts, either
` Fengelman or Awtar, referenced a study that was done on
` the need for feedback.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.025
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`26
`
` Q. Right.
` A. I recall that now.
` Q. Did you review this Exhibit 2018? Did you read
` it?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. You can put it aside.
` All right. Why don't we take a look at
` paragraph 15. And here you are referencing the Anderson
` reference. Is that right?
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. Here it is. You can have that.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. And give me one second. You cite to two
` portions of Anderson. Right? Column 16, lines 14 to 24.
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And then column 6, line 33 to 37. Right?
` A. Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
` Q. Okay. First of all, you agree that Anderson
` does not disclose a passive articulation joint. Right?
` A. Yes, I believe that is correct.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Anderson does not have a passive articulation
` joint. Right.
` Q. So then you also agree that Anderson does not
` disclose tactile feedback for passive articulation.
`
`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
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2025.026
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2018-01247
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01247; IPR2018-01254
`Knodel, Ph.D., Bryan
`
`August 12, 2019
`
`27
`
` Right?
` A. Not that I recall. Right.
` Q. Okay. And you have this -- you paraphrase
`
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
