throbber
Page 1
`
` 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'

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket