`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2018-01254
`
`
`
`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
`