`APPLE, INC. v.
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`July 2, 2019
`
`Barkley Court Reporters
`barkley.com
`800.222.1231
`
`Original File 453175.txt
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 1 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` _________________________________________
`
` APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`
` Patent Owner.
` _________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`U.S. Patent 9,857,568
` _________________________________________
`
`**********************************
` VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
` July 2, 2019
`**********************************
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16 VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD, produced
`
`17 as a witness at the instance of the Patent Owner, and
`
`18 duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered
`
`19 cause on July 2, 2019, from 9:11 a.m. to 3:19 p.m.,
`
`20 before Rebecca A. Graziano, CSR, RPR, CRR, in and for the
`
`21 State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the
`
`22 offices of Haynes and Boone, LLP, 2505 North Plano Road,
`
`23 Suite 4000, Richardson, Texas, in accordance with
`
`24 Rule 37 C.F.R. 42.53(d)(4) and the provisions stated on
`
`25 the record.
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 2 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3 REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER:
`
` Mr. Jamie H. McDole
` HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
` 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
` Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 651-5121
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
` and
`
` Mr. Jordan M. Maucotel
` Mr. Michael S. Parsons
` HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
` 2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
` Richardson, Texas 75082
`(972) 739-6900
`jordan.maucotel@haynesboone.com
`michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
`
` REPRESENTING THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` Mr. Neil A. Rubin
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
`
` Mr. Will Rain
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 3 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
`INDEX
`
`PAGE
`
` EXAMINATION BY MR. RUBIN.......................... 5
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NUMBER
`
` DESCRIPTION
`
` PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1 Declaration of Jose Sasián
`
` in '032 IPR......................... 16
`
` Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Jose Sasián
`
` in '568 IPR......................... 9
`
` Exhibit 1005 United States Patent Number
`
` 9,128,267........................... 60
`
` Exhibit 1020 "Polymer Optics: A Manufacturer's
`
` Perspective on Factors That
`
` Contribute to Successful
`
` Programs.".......................... 93
`
` Exhibit 1026 Declarations of Jose Sasián in
`
` IPR2018-01140 and IPR2018-01148..... 12
`
` 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
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 4 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 PROCEEDINGS
`
` 2 (On the record at 9:11 a.m.)
`
` 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the record
`
` 4 for the video deposition of José Sasián, PhD. The date
`
`09:11 5 is July 2nd, 2019. The time is 9:11 a.m. This is the
`
` 6 matter of Apple, Incorporated, versus Corephotonics
`
` 7 Limited. This is being held in the United States Patent
`
` 8 and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
` 9 Board, Case IPR2019-00030.
`
`09:11 10 The court reporter is Becky Graziano. The
`
`11 videographer is Will Rain. Both are representatives of
`
`12 Barkley Court Reporters.
`
`13 Now will counsel please state your
`
`14 appearances for the record.
`
`09:11 15 MR. RUBIN: Neil Rubin of
`
`16 Russ August & Kabat representing the patent owner,
`
`17 Corephotonics Limited.
`
`18 MR. McDOLE: Jamie McDole from Haynes and
`
`19 Boone representing petitioner and the witness.
`
`09:11 20 MR. MAUCOTEL: Jordan Maucotel from Haynes
`
`21 and Boone representing petitioner and witness.
`
`22 MR. PARSONS: Michael Parsons, also from
`
`23 Haynes and Boone, representing petitioner, Apple.
`
`24 (Witness duly sworn.)
`
`09:12 25
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 5 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD,
`
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:12 5
`
` Q Good morning, Dr. Sasián.
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` A Good morning.
`
` Q So we met before when you were deposed in this
`
` 8 case in February; correct?
`
` 9
`
` A I believe so.
`
`09:12 10
`
` Q Now, in that deposition, I asked you about
`
`11 previous depositions that you had done, and -- and your
`
`12 testimony was that you had been deposed about ten times
`
`13 prior to that deposition. Does that sound right?
`
`14
`
`MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:12 15
`
` Q BY MR. RUBIN: Let me restate the question.
`
`16
`
`Is it accurate that prior to your February
`
`17 deposition, you had been deposed about ten times?
`
`18
`
`19
`
` A As I recall, yes.
`
` Q Have you been deposed between your February
`
`09:13 20 deposition in Apple's IPRs against Corephotonics and
`
`21 today?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` A If I recall well, yes.
`
` Q What case -- or how many times?
`
` A Once.
`
`09:13 25
`
` Q What case was that in?
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 6 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` A I -- I don't recall the -- the case number.
`
` Q Who are the parties?
`
` A I think one party is -- it relates to a company
`
` 4 called Orion, and the other part -- the other party
`
`09:14 5 relates to a company called Sunny.
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` Q So --
`
` A No --
`
` Q Sorry. Were -- were you done?
`
` A Sunny as in S-u-n-n-y.
`
`09:14 10
`
` Q I see. So not S-o-n-y, the -- the Japanese
`
`11 conglomerate?
`
`12
`
`13
`
` A Right.
`
` Q Which -- which of those parties were you engaged
`
`14 as an expert by?
`
`09:14 15
`
` A For Orion.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
` Q Is that a patent case?
`
` A I don't believe so.
`
` Q Is it a trade secret case?
`
` A No, it's not.
`
`09:14 20
`
` Q What -- what's the -- what's the nature of the
`
`21 legal claim in that case?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` A I believe it's an antitrust case.
`
` Q And who's the plaintiff?
`
` A Orion.
`
`09:15 25
`
` Q So it sounds like prior to today, you've been
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 7 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 deposed roughly 12 times, give or take. Does that sound
`
` 2 right?
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` A Approximately.
`
` Q So you're familiar with the deposition process;
`
`09:15 5 correct?
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` A I have some familiarity.
`
` Q So just as a reminder of a few things that
`
` 8 you -- you may know pretty well, you do understand that
`
` 9 you're under oath today; correct?
`
`09:15 10
`
` A Yes.
`
`11
`
` Q It's important for the purposes of the record
`
`12 being taken by the court reporter that we not talk over
`
`13 each other. So please try to make sure that I'm done
`
`14 asking my question before you answer it, and I'll try to
`
`09:16 15 give you the same courtesy. Okay?
`
`16
`
`17
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And it's also important that your answers be in
`
`18 words rather than gestures or nonword utterances. Do you
`
`19 understand?
`
`09:16 20
`
` A Yes.
`
`21
`
` Q If at any time I -- you don't understand my
`
`22 question, please ask me to clarify it, because otherwise
`
`23 we'll have to assume that you did understand the
`
`24 question. Okay?
`
`09:16 25
`
` A Yes.
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 8 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1
`
` Q So as with the last deposition, we'll -- I'll
`
` 2 try to take breaks every hour, hour and a half. If at
`
` 3 any point you do need a break, please let me know and
`
` 4 I'll just ask that you answer the -- any question that's
`
`09:17 5 pending at that time before we break. Okay?
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And do you understand that under the Rules
`
` 8 governing this deposition, you're not allowed to have any
`
` 9 conversation with counsel for Apple during breaks about
`
`09:17 10 my questions or your testimony or questions or testimony
`
`11 that might happen later in the deposition; correct?
`
`12
`
`13
`
` A Yes, I did that.
`
` Q And so you're going to follow that rule, then, I
`
`14 assume?
`
`09:17 15
`
` A Yes, I will follow it.
`
`16
`
` Q So your previous deposition in February
`
`17 concerned declarations that you had submitted regarding
`
`18 the '032 patent and the '712 patent; is that right?
`
`19
`
` A As I recall, yes.
`
`09:18 20
`
` Q Since then, you've submitted additional
`
`21 declarations concerning each of those two patents; is
`
`22 that right?
`
`23
`
`24
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay. And you understand that those two
`
`09:18 25 declarations concerning the '032 patent and '712 patent
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 9 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 are among the topics that this deposition is going to
`
` 2 cover; correct?
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And then you've also submitted a declaration in
`
`09:18 5 Apple's IPR on the '568 patent; correct?
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And so that declaration on the '568 patent is
`
` 8 also one of the topics that we'll be covering in this
`
` 9 deposition; correct?
`
`09:18 10
`
` A Yes.
`
`11
`
` Q And just so the record's clear, when I use the
`
`12 term "'568 patent," I'm referring to Corephotonics'
`
`13 US Patent Number 9,857,568. Okay?
`
`14
`
` A Yes.
`
`09:19 15
`
`(Exhibit 1003 marked.)
`
`16
`
` Q BY MR. RUBIN: So I've just handed you a
`
`17 document from the '568 IPR, and it's labeled
`
`18 Exhibit 1003.
`
`19
`
`Do you recognize this document?
`
`09:20 20
`
` A I believe so.
`
`21
`
` Q Does this -- is this a complete copy of the
`
`22 declaration that you prepared in support of Apple's
`
`23 '568 IPR petition?
`
`24
`
` A Yes, it appears like a complete copy.
`
`09:20 25
`
` Q All right. And on -- so in asking questions
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 10 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 about this document throughout the day, I'll be referring
`
` 2 to page numbers. If you look at the bottom of each page,
`
` 3 there are actually two sets of page numbers. There's
`
` 4 the -- a page number that's -- there -- there's one set
`
`09:21 5 of page numbers above the other set of page numbers. So
`
` 6 the upper set of page numbers just has a number, and then
`
` 7 the lower set of page numbers says page blank of 87.
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` A Yes.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`09:21 10
`
` Q So there's a difference in -- in one between
`
`11 the -- the page number in each set.
`
`12
`
`I'll -- unless I say otherwise, I'll be
`
`13 referring to the top page number, the -- the one that's
`
`14 smaller by one. Okay?
`
`09:21 15
`
` A Yes.
`
`16
`
` Q If you're ever unclear about which page I'm
`
`17 referring to, please ask me to clarify. But -- but I'll
`
`18 be referring to the -- the top page.
`
`19
`
`So if you could please turn to Page 76.
`
`09:22 20
`
` A Yes.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
` Q So is that your signature on Page 76?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So how many hours did you work on this
`
`24 declaration, Exhibit 1003 in the '568 IPR?
`
`09:22 25
`
` A I don't recall at this moment.
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 11 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Q Was it more than ten hours?
`
` 2 A Probably.
`
` 3 Q But it might have been less than ten hours?
`
` 4 A I don't recall exactly, but probably more than
`
`09:23 5 ten hours.
`
` 6 Q Is it more than 20 hours?
`
` 7 A I -- I don't recall.
`
` 8 Q Okay. Did you sign on Page 76 of this document
`
` 9 on June 25th, 2018?
`
`09:23 10 A Well, my signature, it's there, and -- and the
`
`11 date's June 25th, and I most likely must have signed it
`
`12 on that day, yes.
`
`13 Q Do you know whether the -- the version of your
`
`14 declaration that was filed by Apple with the Patent Trial
`
`09:24 15 and Appeal Board is the same as the version that you
`
`16 signed?
`
`17 A I -- I don't know. I didn't check that.
`
`18 Q Would you know how to check that?
`
`19 A I probably -- I know that this is a public
`
`09:24 20 document, and if I go to the US patent office website, I
`
`21 probably can look at the proceedings and download
`
`22 directly from the office my declaration and compare it
`
`23 with -- with one or -- or other versions, say.
`
`24 Q Have you gone to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`09:24 25 Board website to look at any of the proceedings that --
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 12 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 that you've offered opinions in this -- on behalf of
`
` 2 Apple, to be clear?
`
` 3 A No. No. Not that I recall.
`
` 4 Q Okay. Are you aware of any errors in your
`
`09:25 5 declaration in support of the '568 IPR?
`
` 6 A No. I don't -- I don't -- I'm not aware of --
`
` 7 at this moment of any error other than typos or minor
`
` 8 typographical issues. I am not aware of any.
`
` 9 Q Are there any typos that you've noticed in
`
`09:25 10 reviewing the document?
`
`11 A I think in these proceedings, I noticed that
`
`12 there was -- on the page -- or second page of one of the
`
`13 declarations, one patent -- patent number where the last
`
`14 digits were swapped. And if I remember well, there was a
`
`09:26 15 word that was changed or -- but I don't recall exactly
`
`16 where.
`
`17 Q Okay. So the typos that you just listed, are
`
`18 those the only ones that you're -- that you're currently
`
`19 aware of in the declarations you submitted in these
`
`09:26 20 cases, the cases on behalf of Apple?
`
`21 A Yes. The one -- those are the errors I am aware
`
`22 at this moment.
`
`23 (Exhibit 1026 marked.)
`
`24 Q BY MR. RUBIN: Okay. So Professor Sasián, I've
`
`09:27 25 just handed you two documents that are both marked as
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 13 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Exhibit 1024 -- or I'm sorry -- 1026. One of them is
`
` 2 your declaration in support of Apple's reply in the IPR
`
` 3 on the '032 patent, that is the IPR2018-01140 case; and
`
` 4 then the other declaration is the declaration in support
`
`09:28 5 of Apple's reply for the IPR on the -- the instituted IPR
`
` 6 on the '712 patent that is Case IPR2018-00- -- I'm
`
` 7 sorry -- -01146.
`
` 8 Do you recognize those two documents?
`
` 9 A Yes.
`
`09:28 10 Q Is it your understanding that these two
`
`11 documents marked Exhibit 20 -- or I'm sorry -- marked
`
`12 Exhibit 1026 are the same, aside from the case caption
`
`13 and IP- -- on -- on the front and the IPR numbers on the
`
`14 bottom of each page?
`
`09:29 15 A Yes, that's my understanding.
`
`16 Q So the -- all of the substantive content of
`
`17 Exhibit 1026 in the '032 IPR is -- is word-for-word
`
`18 identical to the substantive content in the IPR -- I'm
`
`19 sorry -- in Exhibit 1026 and the '712 IPR; is that
`
`09:29 20 correct?
`
`21 A Yes, except for the references to different
`
`22 IPRs, the documents have the same wording.
`
`23 Q So I will -- I may ask questions about
`
`24 Exhibit 1026, and I think the answers should be the same
`
`09:30 25 regardless of which version of 1026 you're looking at.
`
`13
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 14 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 If you think it makes a difference which version of 1026
`
` 2 I'm referring to, please ask me to clarify. Okay?
`
` 3 A Yes.
`
` 4 Q So sitting here today, are you aware of any
`
`09:30 5 errors in the declaration that you submitted in support
`
` 6 of Apple's replies, Exhibit 1026?
`
` 7 A No. At this moment, I am not aware of any
`
` 8 error.
`
` 9 Q Okay. Okay. So let me ask you to turn to
`
`09:31 10 Exhibit 1003, please, your declaration on the
`
`11 '568 patent.
`
`12 And could you please turn to Paragraph 19?
`
`13 A Yes.
`
`14 Q All right. So the fourth sentence of
`
`09:31 15 Paragraph 19 begins: "Based on the technologies
`
`16 disclosed in the '568 patent."
`
`17 Do you see that sentence?
`
`18 A Yes.
`
`19 Q And you go on in that sentence to identify what
`
`09:31 20 you believe the background would be of some -- of a
`
`21 person having ordinary skill in the art at the priority
`
`22 date of the '568 patent; correct?
`
`23 A Yes.
`
`24 Q Do you know if the description of a person
`
`09:32 25 having ordinary skill in the art in this declaration is
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 15 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 the same as the description of a person of ordinary skill
`
` 2 in the art that you gave in your declaration on the
`
` 3 '032 patent?
`
` 4 A I don't recall the exact description I did for
`
`09:32 5 the '032 patent.
`
` 6 Q Okay. Could you please turn to the top of
`
` 7 Page 9 of your '568 declaration? Do you see that?
`
` 8 A Yes.
`
` 9 Q Do you see the words "and/or manufacturing"?
`
`09:32 10 A Yes.
`
`11 Q Do you know if those words were included in your
`
`12 description of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`13 your declaration for the '032 patent?
`
`14 A The "manufacturing" word may not be in the
`
`09:33 15 definition or characterization of the POSITA in the
`
`16 '032 -- for the '032 patent case, but I don't recall
`
`17 exactly.
`
`18 Q Okay. Now, the '032 patent and the '568 patent
`
`19 have the same specification; correct?
`
`09:33 20 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`21 THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat the
`
`22 question?
`
`23 Q BY MR. RUBIN: So -- well, let me ask a slightly
`
`24 different question.
`
`09:34 25 Setting aside the claims of the -- the
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 16 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 patents, the remainder of the specification and figures
`
` 2 of the '032 patent are the same as the specification and
`
` 3 figures of the '568 patent; correct?
`
` 4 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:34 5 THE WITNESS: No, I disagree with that.
`
` 6 Q BY MR. RUBIN: What's the difference?
`
` 7 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
` 8 THE WITNESS: I think the '568 has -- the
`
` 9 '568 patent, the specification has some added language as
`
`09:34 10 in regards to the ratio of the edge thickness and central
`
`11 thickness of the -- some of the lenses.
`
`12 MR. RUBIN: Mark this as Exhibit Number 1,
`
`13 please.
`
`14 (Sasián Exhibit 1 marked.)
`
`09:35 15 Q BY MR. RUBIN: So in front of you marked as
`
`16 Exhibit Number 1 is actually Exhibit 1003 from the
`
`17 '032 IPR, which is your declaration in the '032 IPR.
`
`18 Do -- do you recognize the document?
`
`19 A Is there a question pending?
`
`09:36 20 Q Yeah. Do you recognize the document that's been
`
`21 marked Exhibit 1 and placed in front of you?
`
`22 A I believe so.
`
`23 Q If I could ask you to turn to Paragraph 19 of
`
`24 that declaration.
`
`09:37 25 A Yes.
`
`16
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 17 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Q So this Paragraph 19 also has a description of a
`
` 2 person of ordinary skill in the art for -- in this case
`
` 3 for the '032 patent; correct?
`
` 4 A Yes.
`
`09:37 5 Q So can you compare for me the description of a
`
` 6 person of ordinary skill in the art in the '032
`
` 7 declaration to the person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
` 8 the '568 patent and tell me what differences, if any, you
`
` 9 see?
`
`09:38 10 A Well, I'm not sure how to make the comparison.
`
`11 Q Okay. Well, let's kind of go through the -- the
`
`12 two paragraphs point by point.
`
`13 In each paragraph, you identify the earliest
`
`14 alleged priority date for the patent in question as
`
`09:38 15 July 4th, 2013; correct?
`
`16 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`17 THE WITNESS: What I say is that I have
`
`18 been informed.
`
`19 Q BY MR. RUBIN: Okay. So that -- but that's the
`
`09:39 20 only date that -- that is July 4th, 2013, is the only
`
`21 date that you point to in connection with a person of
`
`22 ordinary skill in the art in either the '568 or '032
`
`23 declarations; correct?
`
`24 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:39 25 THE WITNESS: It is the date that I list on
`
`17
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 18 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Paragraph 19 of both declarations.
`
` 2 Q BY MR. RUBIN: In both declarations, you say:
`
` 3 "The person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor's
`
` 4 degree in physics, optical sciences, or equivalent
`
`09:39 5 training;" correct?
`
` 6 A Yes.
`
` 7 Q In each declaration you say the person would
`
` 8 have approximately three years of experience; correct?
`
` 9 A Yes.
`
`09:40 10 Q Now, in the '032 patent, you say three years of
`
`11 experience in designing multi-lens optical systems;
`
`12 correct?
`
`13 A Yes.
`
`14 Q In the '568 declaration, you say three years of
`
`09:40 15 experience in designing and/or manufacturing multi-lens
`
`16 optical systems; correct?
`
`17 A Yes.
`
`18 Q And then the -- the last two sentences of
`
`19 Paragraph 19 in each of the two declarations are the
`
`09:40 20 same; correct?
`
`21 A They appear to be the same, yes.
`
`22 Q Okay. So the only difference in the person of
`
`23 ordinary skill in the art that you identify in your
`
`24 declaration for the '032 patent and the person of
`
`09:41 25 ordinary skill in the art that you identify in your
`
`18
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 19 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 declaration for the '568 patent is that in the
`
` 2 '032 patent, it's three years of experience in designing
`
` 3 multi-lens optical systems, whereas in the '568, it's
`
` 4 three years of experience in designing and/or
`
`09:41 5 manufacturing multi-lens optical systems. That's right?
`
` 6 A Yeah. It's a difference, yes.
`
` 7 Q So if you have three years of experience in
`
` 8 designing multi-lens optical systems, you necessarily
`
` 9 also have three years of experience in designing and/or
`
`09:41 10 manufacturing multi-lens optical systems. Would you
`
`11 agree?
`
`12 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`13 THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat that?
`
`14 Q BY MR. RUBIN: So suppose a -- a person has
`
`09:42 15 three years of experience in designing multi-lens optical
`
`16 systems. That same person also has, just as a matter of
`
`17 logic, three years of experience in designing and/or
`
`18 manufacturing multi-lens optical systems; correct?
`
`19 A Not necessarily.
`
`09:42 20 Q So to have three years of experience in
`
`21 designing and/or manufacturing multi-lens optical
`
`22 systems, it's your testimony that you have to have
`
`23 experience manufacturing such systems?
`
`24 A Could you please repeat the question?
`
`09:43 25 Q Well, is it your testimony that in order to meet
`
`19
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 20 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
` 2 for the '568 patent that you've offered, that such a
`
` 3 person would need to have experience manufacturing
`
` 4 multi-lens optical systems?
`
`09:43 5 A My answer is that in my declaration for the
`
` 6 '568, I opine that the POSITA will have approximately
`
` 7 three years of experience in designing and/or
`
` 8 manufacturing. So that person could have had only the
`
` 9 designing experience.
`
`09:44 10 Q So a person that has only design experience but
`
`11 has been doing it for more than -- withdrawn.
`
`12 A person who has three years of designing
`
`13 experience but has no experience manufacturing multi-lens
`
`14 optical systems, is it your testimony that that person
`
`09:44 15 can satisfy both the person of ordinary skill definition
`
`16 for the '032 patent and the person of ordinary skill
`
`17 definition for the '568 patent?
`
`18 A Just to make clear, yes, the person who has --
`
`19 as in regards to that particular part of my qualification
`
`09:45 20 for the POSITA, having the three years of experience in
`
`21 designing would satisfy either of the two calls for a
`
`22 POSITA on the declarations.
`
`23 Q Suppose that a person has three years of
`
`24 experience manufacturing multi-lens optical systems but
`
`09:45 25 no experience designing them. In your opinion, does that
`
`20
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 21 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 person satisfy the definition of a person of ordinary
`
` 2 skill in the art that you've offered for the '568 patent?
`
` 3 A And this refers to the '568?
`
` 4 Q Yes.
`
`09:46 5 A Well, I -- in my call for the definition of the
`
` 6 POSITA, I -- I am opining that -- if you read it, that
`
` 7 such a person would have had experience in analyzing,
`
` 8 tolerance, and adjusting them, and optimizing multiple
`
` 9 systems. So that person has -- has experience in
`
`09:46 10 analyzing, tolerance, and adjusting and optimizing. So
`
`11 that person has experience in designing lenses.
`
`12 Q Okay. Suppose that you had a person who had a
`
`13 bachelor's degree in physics, had two years of experience
`
`14 designing multi-lens optical systems, and two years of
`
`09:47 15 experience manufacturing multi-lens optical systems, and
`
`16 had experience with analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting,
`
`17 and optimizing systems and knew how to use lens design
`
`18 software. Do you understand what I've just described?
`
`19 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:47 20 THE WITNESS: So if -- if I understand you
`
`21 well, you said that that person has a -- a bachelor's
`
`22 degree and has two years of experience designing and two
`
`23 years of experience manufacturing?
`
`24 Q BY MR. RUBIN: Um-hum. That person would
`
`09:47 25 satisfy your definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`21
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 22 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 the art for the '568 patent; correct?
`
` 2 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
` 3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` 4 Q BY MR. RUBIN: But that same person would not
`
`09:48 5 satisfy your definition for a person of ordinary skill in
`
` 6 the art for the '032 patent; correct?
`
` 7 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
` 8 THE WITNESS: Well, that person could also
`
` 9 satisfy the definition of -- of a person of skill for the
`
`09:49 10 art, too. Because in Paragraph 20, I -- I call for the
`
`11 lack of work experience could have been remediated by
`
`12 additional education or vice versa. Such academic and
`
`13 industry experience would be necessary to appreciate what
`
`14 was of use and/or anticipated in the industry.
`
`09:49 15 So the -- the experience, even though the --
`
`16 the design experience may not have been three years but
`
`17 two years, the manufacturing experience will complement
`
`18 the necessary experience to -- to qualify as a -- as a
`
`19 POSITA, according to my definition.
`
`09:50 20 Q BY MR. RUBIN: In your declaration concerning
`
`21 the '568 patent, you offer certain opinions about polymer
`
`22 injection molded lenses; correct?
`
`23 A Yes.
`
`24 Q In the context of lenses, are -- or --
`
`09:50 25 withdrawn.
`
`22
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 23 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 In the context of the materials used in
`
` 2 lenses, do the terms "polymer" and "plastic" mean the
`
` 3 same thing? Are they interchangeable?
`
` 4 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:50 5 THE WITNESS: Often they are used -- used
`
` 6 to indicate a -- a type of material.
`
` 7 Q BY MR. RUBIN: Are the polymers that are used in
`
` 8 lens designs for optical wavelengths all plastics?
`
` 9 A Yes.
`
`09:51 10 Q And are the plastics that are used for lens
`
`11 design for optical wavelengths all polymers?
`
`12 A Not necessarily.
`
`13 Q I see. What would be plastics that are used
`
`14 that are not polymers?
`
`09:51 15 A I don't recall any, but there may be some
`
`16 materials that are not polymer. They are some that are
`
`17 characterized as plastics.
`
`18 Q Okay. So if I understand your testimony,
`
`19 "plastics" may be a broader term than -- or withdrawn.
`
`09:52 20 If I understand your testimony correctly,
`
`21 the term "plastics" in the field of lens materials
`
`22 includes polymers, but may include other types of
`
`23 materials as well; is that right?
`
`24 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`09:52 25 THE WITNESS: I believe so.
`
`23
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 24 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Q BY MR. RUBIN: All right. So I'll try to use
`
` 2 the broader term "plastics," and if -- if you think it --
`
` 3 it matters what specific type of plastic we're talking
`
` 4 about, please let me know. Okay?
`
`09:52 5 A Yes.
`
` 6 Q Have you ever manufactured a -- an injection
`
` 7 molded plastic lens?
`
` 8 A What do you mean by "manufacture"?
`
` 9 Q I guess what do you mean by "manufacture" when
`
`09:53 10 you use the term in your definition of person of ordinary
`
`11 skill?
`
`12 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
`13 THE WITNESS: Well, it -- it can be
`
`14 direct -- direct experience with the injection molding
`
`09:53 15 machine as an operator, or it can be specifying --
`
`16 designing and specifying a lens to be injection molded,
`
`17 for example.
`
`18 Q BY MR. RUBIN: So have you ever performed the --
`
`19 the process of injection molding a plastic lens yourself?
`
`09:54 20 A I've been present in an injection molding
`
`21 factory, but I don't recall actually punching buttons to
`
`22 do the process.
`
`23 Q Where was that factory?
`
`24 A There used to be a factory in Tucson, Arizona,
`
`09:54 25 many years ago.
`
`24
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`IPR2019-00030
`Exhibit 2012 Page 25 of 140
`
`
`
`JOSÉ SASIÁN, PhD
`
` 1 Q When was that? That you visited the factory, I
`
` 2 mean.
`
` 3 A Around -- if I recall well, around 1996. That's
`
` 4 one instance.
`
`09:55 5 Q So the last time that you visited a factory
`
` 6 where plastic lenses were being injection molded was in
`
` 7 1996; is that right?
`
` 8 MR. McDOLE: Objection; form.
`
` 9 THE WITNESS: I -- I didn't say "last
`
`09:55 10 time." I just said that that instance was around 1996.
`
`11 Q BY MR. RUBIN: When was