`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________
` SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
` Petitioner,
` v.
` SOLAS OLED, LTD.,
` Patent Owner.
` _________________________
` Case IPR2020-00320
` U.S. Patent No. 7,446,338
`
` ZOOM DEPOSITION OF ADAM J. FONTECCHIO, Ph.D.
`(Reported Remotely via Video & Web Videoconference)
` Downington, Pennsylvania (Deponent's location)
` Friday, September 11, 2020
`
`
`REPORTED BY:
`REBECCA L. ROMANO, RPR, CSR No. 12546
`JOB NO. 28414
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 1 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` DEPOSITION OF ADAM J. FONTECCHIO, Ph.D.,
` taken on behalf of the Patent Owner, with the
` deponent located in Downington, Pennsylvania,
` commencing at 11:03 a.m., Friday,
` September 11, 2020, remotely reported via
` video & web videoconference before
` Rebecca L. Romano, Stenographic California
` Certified Shorthand Reporter, No. 12546, RPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 2 of 161
`
`
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`(All parties appearing via web videoconference)
`
`Page 3
`
`For the Petitioner:
` COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
` BY: DAVID A. GARR
` Attorney at Law
` One CityCenter
` 850 Tenth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20001-4956
` (202) 662-5250
` dgarr@cov.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
` RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
` BY: NEIL A. RUBIN
` Attorney at Law
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard
` 12th Floor
` Los Angeles, California 90025
` (310) 826-7474
` nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Alfredo Domador, Videographer
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 3 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`DEPONENT EXAMINATION
`ADAM J. FONTECCHIO, Ph.D. PAGE
`VOLUME I
`
` MR. RUBIN 8, 136
` MR. GARR 128
` E X H I B I T S
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 1003 US Patent Application 9
` Publication No. US
` 2002/0158835 A1;
`
`Exhibit 1004 US Patent Application 9
` Publication No. US
` 2004/0113873 A1;
`
`Exhibit 1005 International Publication 9
` No. WO 03/079441 A1;
`
`Exhibit 1018 Declaration of 10
` Adam Fontecchio, Ph.D.;
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 4 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` E X H I B I T S(cont'd)
`NUMBER PAGE
` DESCRIPTION
`Exhibit 1020 Claim Construction 15
` Memorandum and Order;
`
`Exhibit 2001 US Patent Application 23
` Publication No. US
` 2004/0256617 A1;
`
`/////
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 5 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
` Downington, Pennsylvania;
` Friday, September 11, 2020
` 11:03 a.m.
` ---o0o---
`
` (All exhibits previously marked.)
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are
`now on the record. Today's date is September 11th,
`2020, and the time is 11:03 a.m.
`Eastern Standard Time. This is the video
`deposition of Dr. Adam Fontecchio, in the matter of
`Solas OLED, Ltd., versus Samsung Display Co., Ltd.,
`et al. filed in the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board. Case No. is IPR 2020-00320.
` This deposition is taking place via web
`videoconference with all participants attending
`remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
` My name is Alfredo Domador. I'm the
`videographer representing TransPerfect.
` Would Counsel on the conference please
`identify yourself and state whom you represent.
` MR. RUBIN: This is Neil Rubin of
`Russ, August & Kabat representing the Patent Owner,
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 6 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Solas OLED, Ltd.
` MR. GARR: And this is David Garr from
`Covington & Burling representing Petitioner,
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
` And just for the record, the caption is
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Petitioner, v.
`Solas OLED, Ltd., Patent Owner, which is the --
`just a different order than the way the
`videographer read it out.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, our court
`reporter today is Rebecca Romano representing
`TransPerfect. Would the court reporter please
`swear in the witness and we can begin.
` THE COURT REPORTER: Before I swear in
`the deponent, I will ask Counsel to stipulate on
`the record that due to the current national
`emergency pandemic, the court reporter may swear in
`the deponent even though she is not in the physical
`presence of the deponent and that there will be no
`objection to that at this time, nor will there be
`an objection to that at a future date.
` Counsel?
` MR. RUBIN: Patent Owner agrees.
` MR. GARR: No objections from Petitioner.
`Thank you.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 7 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
` ADAM J. FONTECCHIO, Ph.D.,
`having been administered an oath, was examined and
`testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. RUBIN:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Fontecchio.
` A. Good morning, Mr. Rubin.
` Q. So we just did a deposition yesterday, so
`I -- I would think it's fair to assume you are
`familiar with the deposition process. Do you have
`any questions about the deposition process?
` A. Nope. I think it was pretty clear
`yesterday, so I'm familiar.
` Q. And is there any reason today that you
`cannot give full and complete testimony?
` A. There is not.
` Q. Thank you.
` Can you tell me, do you have any paper
`documents with you --
` A. I do.
` Q. -- for the deposition?
` A. I am sorry. I do. As of yesterday, I
`made some hard copies of the documents I thought
`would be most relevant. So I have a copy of my
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 8 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`declaration of the '338 patent and then of the
`Childs patent, the Shirasaki patent and the
`Kobayashi patent. And the only edits I have made,
`or annotations, are the highlight on the front
`page. The names that I could find were a little
`more easier because the names are fairly
`downloadable.
` Otherwise, there are no notes or anything
`on them.
` Q. All right. So it's just the five
`documents that you listed --
` A. Yeah.
` Q. -- that have with you?
` A. That's correct. And I also have a folder
`with those five documents in case we need them
`electronically, a separate folder on my computer
`desktop.
` MR. RUBIN: So for the benefit of the
`court reporter, I have just uploaded, using the
`chat function, those five documents, Exhibits 1001,
`1003, 1004, 1005 and 1018. I will note that I
`actually, initially, had uploaded an incorrect
`Exhibit 1001, which was yesterday's Exhibit 1001.
`So please disregard that.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) So, Dr. Fontecchio, if
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 9 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`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
`
`you could please take a look at Exhibit 1018.
` A. Yes, this is my declaration.
` Q. So do you recognize Exhibit 1018 as the
`declaration that you submitted in support of
`Samsung Display's petition in this IPR?
` A. I do. That is the document I have in
`front of me, and I recognize it.
` Q. Are you aware of any errors in this
`document?
` A. No, I am not. Can I also add, by the
`way, that the copies I have printed do have the
`Samsung exhibit numbers that match the electronic
`files you sent through. So I'm looking at the same
`versions.
` Q. Very good.
` And is there anything that you would like
`to change about Exhibit 118 [sic]?
` A. Not at this time, no.
` Q. Okay. Turning to the last page of
`Exhibit 16 -- 118. Withdrawn.
` Turning to the last page of Exhibit 118,
`there's the date December 18th, 2019. Is that when
`you completed the declaration, Exhibit 118?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. When did you start working on this IPR?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 10 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. I don't remember exactly. I think it was
`early in October. Maybe late in September of 2019.
` Q. How much time would you say you spent
`writing the declaration?
` A. I don't recall off the top of my head.
` Q. Okay. Was it more than 20 hours?
` A. Yes.
` Q. More than 50 hours?
` A. I -- I would expect so, yes.
` Q. More than 70 hours?
` A. Probably, but I would have to check my
`records, once again, to know exactly.
` Q. So in your declaration, you offer
`opinions that certain claims of the '338 patent are
`obvious based on the combination of Kobayashi and
`Shirasaki; is that right?
` A. Obvious or disclosed. My -- I'm
`offering --
` Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
` A. My opinion here is that Kobayashi and
`Childs -- in combination with Shirasaki in some
`places -- teach what is in the '338 patent.
` Q. But you don't offer the opinion that any
`of the -- any claim of the -- well, withdrawn.
` The '338 patent that is at issue in this
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 11 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
`IPR has a number of claims, and the claims that
`offer opinions are -- at least some of the claims
`between claims 1 and 13, you don't offer any
`opinions on claims outside of that range of claim
`numbers, right?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` MR. RUBIN: Sorry. All right. I'm going
`to withdraw the question and ask a different one.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) All the claims from the
`'338 patent that you offer opinions on depend on
`claim 1, right?
` A. With the exception of claim 1, yes.
` Q. Okay. So you offer opinions on claim 1
`and on claims that depend from claim 1 and not on
`any other claims in the patent, correct?
` A. Yes, I offer opinions on claim 1 and the
`dependent claims that depend on claim 1.
` Q. Thank you. That was a clearer way of
`putting it than in my question.
` So you don't offer the opinion that
`claim 1 is anticipated, correct?
` A. I think a lot of claim 1 is anticipated.
`So I am not sure what you mean by that.
` Q. So let me read to you the first sentence
`from paragraph 18 of your declaration.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 12 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
`"Petitioner's counsel has informed me that a patent
`claim may be 'anticipated' if each element of that
`claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`a single prior art reference and that the elements
`should be arranged in the" as -- I am sorry -- "the
`elements should be arranged in the reference as in
`the claim."
` So is that your understanding, that to be
`anticipated, each element of a claim must be
`present either explicitly or inherently in a single
`prior art reference?
` A. Yes, that's my understanding. And that
`was what was explained to me by Counsel.
` Q. All right. So you would agree that
`claim 1 is not anticipated by the references that
`you offered opinions on because it's not the case
`that each element of claim 1 is present in a single
`one of those prior art references, correct?
` MR. GARR: Object. Scope.
` THE DEPONENT: For claim 1, you -- I have
`offered the opinion that there's a combination of
`Kobayashi and Shirasaki or the combination of
`Childs and Shirasaki. And so claim 1, I would
`agree, is obvious.
` However, I am not -- I am not a lawyer.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 13 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`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
`
`So I am not sure in the additional dependent
`claims. I thought they were anticipated because
`they are identified in one place. But this is
`perhaps my misunderstanding of the difference
`between anticipation and obviousness.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) Okay. So you would agree
`that each of the -- withdrawn.
` So you are aware that there's a
`District Court case that's been brought by Solas
`that asserts the '338 patent against
`Samsung Display and other defendants, correct?
` A. I'm aware of that, yes.
` Q. Okay. And you are aware that in that
`case, the Court has issued a Markman order
`construing terms in the claims that you've offered
`opinions on here?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: If you are referring to
`the claim construction document, I'm aware of that,
`yes.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) And so when you submitted
`this declaration in December of 2019, the Court in
`that case had not yet issued a claim construction
`order, correct; that is, the Court in the -- the
`District Court case between Solas and Samsung?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 14 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. I'm -- I'm not sure. I don't know when
`the claim construction date was -- was issued. I
`know that the claim construction date was for the
`District Court -- I am sorry, the claim
`construction document is for the District Court
`case, not for the IPR. But I don't remember the
`date that it was issued.
` Q. Okay. So I have just uploaded -- using
`the chat function -- Exhibit 1020, which was filed
`by Samsung as an exhibit in this IPR. And I can
`share that on the screen.
` A. Okay. I'm downloading it, also.
` Q. Very good.
` So do you recognize Exhibit 1020 as the
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order that was
`issued by the District Court in the case where
`Solas is asserting the '338 patent against
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd. and the other defendants?
` A. I do, yes. I recognize it.
` Q. And do you see that this was issued by
`the Court in April of 2020, which was some months
`after you submitted your declaration in the IPR?
` A. I see that, yes.
` Q. So are you aware that, at least in some
`cases, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will take
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 15 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`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
`
`into consideration constructions that have been
`issued by District Courts in reaching the Board's
`own determination as to the proper construction of
`the claims?
` A. I did not know that. I don't have any
`reason not to believe you. But I did not know
`that.
` Q. Okay.
` MR. GARR: I will object to scope.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) So let me ask you if the
`PTAB were to -- well, withdrawn.
` So there are three terms that were
`disputed by the parties in the District Court case
`from the '338 patent that the District Court
`ultimately construed. You can see them under the
`heading "DISPUTED TERMS" in -- on the first page of
`Exhibit 10- -- or 1020. There are "transistor
`array substrate," "project on the surface of the
`transistor array substrate," and "write current."
` Do you see those?
` A. I see that, yes.
` Q. Do you believe that -- well, withdrawn.
` We don't know how the PTAB will
`ultimately construe these terms, but I'd like you
`to assume for the moment that the PTAB were to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 16 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`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
`
`adopt -- adopt the same claim constructions as the
`District Court did for those three terms.
` Do you believe that would change any of
`your opinions that you've offered in your
`declaration in the IPR?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I haven't considered that
`exact question, but I don't believe that the claim
`Construction Memorandum and Order changes my
`opinions in the -- in my IPR declaration. But just
`sitting here right now, I -- I don't think so.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) So in the District Court
`case, you have submitted an expert report that
`offers opinions concerning invalidity of the '338
`patent and is based on the same Kobayashi and
`Childs and Shirasaki references as you discussed in
`your IPR declaration; is that right?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. Okay. And when you submitted that report
`for the District Court case, you did have the
`benefit of knowing how the District Court had
`construed these three disputed claim terms,
`correct?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. So was there any change that you made to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 17 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`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
`
`your invalidity opinions when you wrote your report
`in the District Court case from the opinions that
`you had offered concerning those same references in
`your IPR declaration?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: As I sit here today, I
`don't recall any differences due to the claim
`construction when I submitted that report.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) Are there any other
`meaningful differences that you recall between the
`opinions that you offered regarding obviousness
`based on Kobayashi, Childs and/or Shirasaki in the
`IPR declaration and the corresponding opinions you
`offered in the District Court expert report?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: As I sit here today, I
`don't recall any substantive changes in my opinions
`regarding the -- the three patents and their
`anticipation or obviousness. I would need to
`compare the other report to, you know, give you a
`complete answer. I just -- as I sit here, I don't
`think there was anything significant.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) So at least sitting here
`right now, you can't recall there being any
`significant differences between the invalidity
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 18 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`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
`
`opinions that you offered for the '338 patent and
`the IPR declaration and the invalidity opinions
`that you offered for the '338 patent in the
`District Court expert report; is that right?
` MR. GARR: Same objection.
` THE DEPONENT: As I sit here today, I
`can't recall anything. If you want to provide me a
`copy of the other report, I -- I guess I could take
`a look at it. I don't have a copy here, as we
`talked about earlier.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) So tell me in the
`combination that you analyze of Kobayashi with
`Shirasaki, what is it that Shirasaki provides to
`that combination that was not in Kobayashi?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: So Shirasaki brings in a
`three-transistor circuit for the pixel.
` Kobayashi has a two-transistor circuit.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) And for the combination
`that you analyze, Childs with Shirasaki, what is it
`that Shirasaki provides to that combination that
`was not in Kobayashi?
` A. The --
` MR. GARR: Objection.
` THE DEPONENT: The same thing. The same
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 19 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`thing. Shirasaki brings in a three-transistor
`pixel circuit instead of the two-transistor pixel
`circuit in Childs.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) And I guess to avoid
`conclusion -- or I am sorry, to avoid confusion --
`withdrawn.
` To avoid potential confusion, I should
`note that the '338 patent and the prior art
`reference, Exhibit 1004, both have the same
`inventor, Shirasaki, listed as the first inventor.
` So if I'm asking about Shirasaki, you
`should assume that I'm talking about the prior art
`reference 1004 and not about the '338 patent; is
`that fair?
` A. Yes. I refer to them as the same way in
`my declaration, so that -- that works for me.
` Q. So is there anything that you rely on in
`Shirasaki for either of your obviousness
`combinations besides the Shirasaki three-transistor
`circuit?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. So is it true that you only utilize
`Shirasaki in order to satisfy element 1[f] of the
`challenge claims in your obviousness analysis?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 20 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` THE DEPONENT: Let -- let me look and
`verify.
` I believe that's correct. Yes, it's just
`element 1[f].
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) Turn --
` A. I use the Shirasaki for -- for the
`combination so my answer is complete. Sorry.
` Q. Thank you.
` If you could turn to page 72 of your
`declaration, please.
` A. Okay.
` Q. So on page 72, you include a copy of
`figure 5B from Shirasaki; is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And then on -- on page 107 -- well, I am
`sorry. Withdrawn.
` On page 72 that was part of your analysis
`of anticipation based on Kobayashi in combination
`with Shirasaki; is that right?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` MR. RUBIN: I am sorry. Let me withdraw
`the question and -- and --
` MR. GARR: Yeah.
` THE DEPONENT: I'm just looking --
` MR. RUBIN: Counsel has pointed out a
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 21 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`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
`
`problem -- has correctly pointed out a problem with
`the question.
` All right. So let me start over.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) The discussion of
`Shirasaki on page 72 of your declaration is part of
`your analysis of whether the claims are rendered
`obvious by the combination of Kobayashi with
`Shirasaki; is that right?
` A. On page 72, yes, that is correct.
` Q. And on page 107 you include a copy of
`that same figure 5B from Shirasaki; is that right?
` A. Yes, I do. On page 107, figure 5B is
`there.
` Q. That's part of your analysis of
`obviousness based on the combination of Childs with
`Shirasaki, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. I am right that there are no other
`figures from Shirasaki that you copy into your
`report or discuss besides figure 5B?
` A. I think that's correct.
` Q. And the -- the figure 5B illustrates what
`you refer to as the three-transistor circuit in
`Shirasaki; is that right?
` A. Yes, that's correct. And it's the same
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 22 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`circuit as figure 2 from the '338 patent.
` Q. Okay. I'm uploading or just uploaded in
`the chat function and I will show on the screen
`now, as well, Exhibit 2001.
` A. I'm downloading it.
` Q. Exhibit 2001 is U.S. Patent No. 2004/ --
`I am sorry. U.S. Patent Publication Number --
`withdrawn.
` Exhibit 2001 is U.S. Patent Application,
`Publication No. 2004/0256617 to Yamada, et al.
` Do you see that?
` A. I do, but it is still downloading for me.
`But I see it on your screen.
` Q. Do you recall having seen this Patent
`Application or Patent Application Publication, I
`should say?
` A. I do. Yes, I have seen it before.
` Q. Do you recognize this as one of the
`references that is listed on the front page of the
`'338 patent as cited during prosecution?
` A. Not off the top of my head. Do you want
`me to look at the '338 patent?
` Q. Sure.
` If you could look at the '338 patent,
`front page, right column, the -- the bottom of the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 23 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`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
`
`list of U.S. Patent documents.
` A. Yes, I see that. And I can confer.
` Q. So I would like to draw your attention to
`the figures of the Yamada Patent Application, and
`you should see on the screen, Figures 12A and 12B.
` A. I do. I'm going to scroll down my
`document. They are a little bigger, yes.
` Q. Would you agree that these figures show
`the same circuit that you've referred to as the
`three-transistor circuit that's -- that you use
`from the Shirasaki prior art reference?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: Let me check them. They
`don't appear to be exactly the same, no.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) Okay.
` A. For example, the gate in figure 12A, 22g
`is connected to line Xi. But in figure 5B that is
`not where the gate goes. It's connected to
`line Zi. So it's not exactly the same.
` I am sorry. I said "the gate," but I
`meant "the drain, 22 drain." Sorry. I was reading
`the labels incorrectly on the figures as I was
`saying that.
` Q. Thank you for that clarification or
`correction.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 24 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` Let's take a look at figure 6 of
`Yamada Exhibit 2001. So in figure 6 of Yamada,
`would you agree that the drain 22 is connected to
`Z -- line Zi just as in Shirasaki figure 5?
` A. Yes, I agree. The 22D is connected to
`the Zi line.
` Q. So would you agree that the -- that
`figure 6 of Yamada shows the same three-transistor
`circuit as the Shirasaki reference does?
` A. Well, let me take a look since the last
`one wasn't quite the same.
` It appears to be the same circuit.
` Q. Okay. So you would agree that the
`three-transistor circuit that you rely on from the
`Shirasaki reference was contained in the -- in a
`prior art document that was available to the
`examiner when he decided that the patent should be
`allowed? The '338 patent, that is...
` A. The figures that we have examined appear
`to be the same between Shirasaki and Yamada. I
`haven't read the description of Yamada in some
`time. But the two figures that we just talked
`about appear to be the same.
` Q. Okay. And -- and so the Yamada Patent
`Application Publication containing that figure was
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 25 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`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
`
`one of the pieces of prior art that was cited to
`the examiner while he was considering whether the
`'338 patent should be allowed, correct?
` A. I believe so. I agree Yamada was cited
`in the patent.
` Q. I'd like to ask you to turn in your
`declaration to paragraph 80. That's on page 41.
` A. Paragraph 80, page 41. I'm there.
` Q. Yeah. So -- so I will read the first
`sentence.
` "I note that other passages of the '338
`patent similarly reinforce that the '338 patent
`considers the 'transistor array substrate' to
`encompass all of the layers below the OLED
`elements 20."
` So in -- as you understand the term
`"transistor array substrate," what would be the
`layers in figure 6 of the '338 patent that you show
`on this page that form part of the transistor array
`substrate?
` A. Paragraph 78 defines it. And, in fact,
`in the '338 patent it defines the transistor array
`substrate as No. 50 in figure 6.
` I go on in paragraph 79 to describe it
`halfway down. "In figure 6, for example, the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 26 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
`transistor array substrate includes the layers from
`the insulating substrate 2 through the
`planarization film 33, including gate insulating
`film 31 and protective insulating film 32 (as well
`as transistors 23 and 21 within the transistor
`array substrate 50)."
` MR. GARR: Counsel, are we done with
`Yamada for the time being?
` MR. RUBIN: Sure.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) Let me ask you to just
`turn to page 70 of your declaration, please.
` So on page 70 you begin a discussion of
`element 1[f] of the patent claims and you would
`agree that element 1[f] recites three specific
`transistors. A driving transistor, a switch
`transistor and a holding transistor, correct?
` A. I do agree, yes.
` Q. And so in your proposed obviousness
`combination of Kobayashi and Shirasaki, you point
`to two transistors in Kobayashi that you believe
`correspond, to a driving transistor and a switch
`transistor; is that right?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. But Kobayashi does not contain a holding
`transistor, correct?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 27 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. Kobayashi did not contain a holding
`transistor, which is why we bring in Shirasaki.
` Q. And by the same token, Childs does not
`contain a holding transistor; is that right?
` A. That's correct. There's no holding
`transistor in Childs.
` Q. So the holding transistor that you
`contend is in Shirasaki would be the transistor
`labeled 10 in figure 5B; is that right?
` A. Yes. And I say this in paragraph 135.
`Transistor 10 in Shirasaki corresponds to holding
`transistor 22 in figure 2 of the '338 patent. And
`then there's a figure on page 72.
` Q. So I see here, and elsewhere places in
`your declaration, where you say that transistor 10
`in Shirasaki corresponds to a holding transistor,
`or you say that it is a holding transistor. I
`don't recall seeing you explain how it is that
`it -- or what is it that makes it a holding
`transistor.
` Do you recall there being a discussion of
`why it is that it's a holding transistor, in your
`declaration?
` MR. GARR: Object to form.
` THE DEPONENT: I believe that I do. But
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`IPR2020-00320
`Ex. 2007
`Page 28 of 161
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
`at a very high level, it's the same circuit as the
`'338 patent. So the elements are performing the
`same functions.
` Q. (By Mr. Rubin) All right.
` A. Shirasaki has the same circuit in both of
`these patents.
` Q. Where is it that you think you explain
`how it is that transistor 10 is a holding
`transistor?
` A. It's back when I discussed Shirasaki.
`Let me take a look. So I do -- I do define it as a
`holding transistor on page 50 where I say
`"Shirasaki discloses that same three-transistor
`pixel circuit in figure 5B (for example), which
`includes what '338 patent refers as a 'driving
`transistor'