In The Matter Of:
`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
`
`
`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
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
