Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` GM Global Technology Operations LLC
` Patent Owner
` __________
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625
`
` Filed: August 24, 2016
`
` Issued: September 19, 2017
`
` Title: Vehicle Front Fender
`
` __________
`
` DEPOSITION OF
`
` JASON C. HILL
`
` Monday, October 19, 2020
`
`REPORTED BY: JOHN WISSENBACH, RDR, CRR, CRC, CSR 6862
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 2006
`LKQ v. GM
`IPR2020-00534
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` __________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` GM Global Technology Operations LLC
` Patent Owner
` __________
`
` U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625
`
` Filed: August 24, 2016
`
` Issued: September 19, 2017
`
` Title: Vehicle Front Fender
`
` __________
`
` DEPOSITION OF
`
` JASON C. HILL
`
` Monday, October 19, 2020
`
`REPORTED BY: JOHN WISSENBACH, RDR, CRR, CRC, CSR 6862
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 2006
`LKQ v. GM
`IPR2020-00534
`
`1
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
` Page
`
`WITNESS:
`
`JASON C. HILL
`
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Herriges 4
`
` EXHIBITS REFERENCED
`
` Hill Exhibit 1003
`
` Hill Exhibit 1004
`
` Hill Exhibit 1006
`
` Hill Exhibit 2002
`
` Hill Exhibit 2003
`
` ---o0o---
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`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
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 3
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to the laws
`
`governing the taking and use of depositions, on Monday,
`
`October 19, 2020, commencing at 7:07 a.m., before me,
`
`JOHN WISSENBACH, CSR 6862, of San Francisco, California,
`
`appeared through videoconference JASON C. HILL, at Costa
`
`Mesa, California, called as a witness by the Patent
`
`Owner, who, being by me first duly sworn, was thereupon
`
`examined as a witness in said action.
`
` APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE
`
`For the Petitioners:
`
` IRWIN IP
` BY: IFTEKHAR (IFTI) ZAIM, Attorney at Law
` 222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2350
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 667-6092 izaim@irwinip.com
`
`For the Patent Owner:
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` BY: JOSEPH A. HERRIGES, Attorney at Law
` 3200 RBC Plaza
` 60 South Sixth Street
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` (612) 337-2579 herriges@fr.com
`
` GENERAL MOTORS LLC
` BY: ANGELA K. CALIGIURI, Attorney at Law
` 300 Renaissance Center
` Detroit, Michigan 48265-3000
` (313) 665-5774 angela.caligiuri@gm.com
`
` ---o0o---
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 4
`
`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
`
` CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HERRIGES
`
` Q. Okay. Mr. Hill, are you ready to proceed?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Could you just state your full name and
`
`address for the record, please.
`
` A. Sure. It's Jason Hill. I reside at 227
`
`Virginia Place, Costa Mesa, California 92627.
`
` Q. Okay. Now, have you been deposed before,
`
`Mr. Hill?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Okay. And was that in one of the Mahindra
`
`cases? Am I saying that right?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And I see from your CV that there was
`
`what looked like a district court action against FCA.
`
`Is that right?
`
` A. The action was in -- it was with the
`
`International Trade Commission, the ITC.
`
` Q. I see. So -- and you participated in a
`
`deposition in the ITC case; is that right?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. And were you working on behalf of FCA or
`
`Mahindra?
`
` A. On behalf of Mahindra.
`
` Q. Okay. Am I saying that right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 5
`
`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 think so, yes.
`
` Q. Can you just describe generally what that --
`
`what that case was about, starting with whether it was a
`
`design case or a utility patent case.
`
` A. It was not a utility patent case. It had to do
`
`with trade dress.
`
` Q. Okay. And generally, again at a high level,
`
`can you describe what your involvement was in that case.
`
` A. Yes. I was asked to give an opinion on certain
`
`design features that were identified and also form an
`
`opinion as to whether these features came from and if
`
`they were functional or purely aesthetic.
`
` Q. Okay. And what was the design in question
`
`there, or the technology in question, if you will?
`
` A. It -- hmm. I believe it's public knowledge.
`
`It's a question from FCA's side regarding trade dress
`
`against a Mahindra product that they felt was too
`
`similar to asserted -- asserted marks, or asserted --
`
`asserted trade dress.
`
` Q. Do you recall what that product was?
`
` A. It's known as the Mahindra Roxor.
`
` Q. Could you spell that for the court reporter,
`
`please.
`
` A. Certainly. R-O-X-O-R.
`
` Q. And what kind of product is the Roxor?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 6
`
`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. It is a -- what's known as an off-road or a
`
`side by side, UTV, a utility -- UTV.
`
` Q. Okay. And so FCA had filed a trade dress
`
`action against Mahindra concerning some sort of trade
`
`dress infraction for the Roxor, that Mahindra was
`
`seeking to import into the United States? Am I
`
`generally --
`
` MR. ZAIM: I'll object.
`
` Sorry. Go ahead.
`
` THE WITNESS: I didn't hear --
`
` MR. ZAIM: I -- I was just going to object to
`
`scope. But please go ahead and complete your question.
`
`Apologies.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. Let me try -- let me try again.
`
` So Mahindra was seeking to import the Roxor
`
`into the United States; is that right?
`
` A. No. They were -- they were constructing the
`
`Roxor here in the U.S.
`
` Q. Okay. And that was the product -- the Roxor
`
`was the product that FCA was saying was encroaching on
`
`their trade dress. Am I getting that right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: It -- can you -- can you say that
`
`again, or repeat the question?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. Was FCA asserting that the Roxor was
`
`infringing upon FCA's trade dress?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm trying to recall the exact
`
`complaint and distill it into an answer.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Maybe I can do it this way. I don't want to
`
`cut you off, but I think maybe my -- my -- the nature of
`
`my question is getting lost between us.
`
` Were you offering an opinion that Roxor did not
`
`encroach on FCA's trade dress?
`
` A. I was offering an opinion on the -- on the
`
`specific elements that were called to and -- and -- and
`
`their origins and offering an opinion that the -- that
`
`the -- it was pretty limited. It was to the six
`
`elements, the asserted trade dress elements, and I was
`
`offering my opinion about the origins of those and their
`
`manifestation.
`
` Q. Did you testify at a trial? Was there
`
`ultimately an ITC hearing?
`
` A. I did. There was two.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you -- did you testify at both
`
`of those hearings?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`Page 8
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. So -- so I'm clear, you had a
`
`deposition. Was it just one deposition?
`
` A. Two depositions.
`
` Q. Two depositions. And did you -- and you also,
`
`then, had two examinations at an ITC hearing?
`
` A. Two cross-examinations at the ITC hearing, yes,
`
`correct.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Any -- any other depositions that you have had
`
`other than the ones in the FCA/Mahindra case?
`
` A. There is one. It was related to a personnel
`
`matter at my first place of employment about sexual
`
`harassment. And that would have been in 1993.
`
` Q. Okay. And that had nothing to do with your
`
`expertise in design, I take it?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. None at all.
`
` Q. And so no other deposition other than that one,
`
`the FCA and Mahindra ones; is that right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Until today, correct.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Until today.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` Do you have anything with you, Mr. Hill, in
`
`front of you, any notebooks, anything like that?
`
` A. No. I have my -- my water.
`
` Q. Well, okay. So you've been deposed before, but
`
`let's just go through a little bit of the protocol just
`
`as a refresher. You can obviously see Mr. Wissenbach is
`
`taking down the words that you're saying, correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And you understand that your testimony
`
`could be presented to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board
`
`in this case?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. And you understand that the Patent and
`
`Trial Appeals Board is an agency of the United States
`
`government?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you understand that you're under oath
`
`today?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. And you understand that while we're not in
`
`court, there's not a judge here, you understand that the
`
`testimony that you give today is subject to the same
`
`penalties of perjury as if we were sitting in a
`
`courtroom?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` Q. And you understand, sir, that we may take some
`
`breaks today, but you're not permitted to speak to
`
`anyone about the substance of your deposition while this
`
`deposition is going on? Do you understand that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. And can we agree that you'll abide by
`
`that today?
`
` A. Yes, indeed.
`
` Q. Okay. Any reasons, medical or otherwise, you
`
`can't tell the full and complete truth today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. All right. What did you do to prepare for
`
`today's deposition?
`
` MR. ZAIM: And I'm going to object just to
`
`caution the witness not to disclose the substance of any
`
`conversations with attorneys, on the basis of privilege.
`
`Otherwise you may answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Most of my preparation involved
`
`absorbing and understanding my point of view and
`
`reviewing my declaration and upholding the -- how do I
`
`say it? -- upholding the standard of the tests for
`
`both -- both grounds and making sure that I'm familiar
`
`with all of my essential findings.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. So you -- you spent some time reviewing
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`your -- your report, right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; mischaracterizes.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Well, let me ask it this way: Did you spend
`
`time reviewing your report to prepare for today?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you review any other written
`
`materials separate from your report today?
`
` A. I examined the findings from the PTAB. I
`
`examined the initial response. I examined other -- the
`
`other expert witness testimony -- or declaration. Yeah,
`
`and as well as my own, you know, prior notes.
`
` Q. Okay. And when you say the other witness, do
`
`you mean Mr. Peters?
`
` A. No, I'm sorry. The witness from -- from LKQ's
`
`side, or from Irwin's side, Mr. Gandy.
`
` Q. Mr. Gandy. Okay. Did you -- and I want to be
`
`clear. I'm not asking what you talked about, but did
`
`you meet with anybody from Mr. Irwin's firm to prepare
`
`for your deposition? And that's --
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection as before regarding
`
`privilege. But go ahead and answer subject to the
`
`objection.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah, just a yes-or-no question. Did you meet
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`with anybody from Mr. Irwin's firm to prepare for your
`
`deposition today?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. Who was that?
`
` A. Mr. Ifti -- Mr. Zaim, as well as an associate,
`
`and also with Mr. Irwin.
`
` Q. Okay. And when did that meeting occur?
`
` A. Twice last week.
`
` Q. Do you recall roughly how long you met with
`
`folks from Mr. Irwin's firm?
`
` A. Approximately one -- one hour.
`
` Q. Were there any -- was there anybody else other
`
`than Mr. Zaim, Mr. Irwin, and the other associate you
`
`referenced who were involved in those meetings?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And did you talk with anyone else other than
`
`those three attorneys from Mr. Irwin's firm to prepare
`
`for your deposition today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Gandy to prepare for
`
`your deposition today?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. I'm a little new to this, but I think I've done
`
`the transfer correctly. If you look in the chat
`
`function, Mr. Hill, I've got your report. It should be
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`transferred there.
`
` A. I see it.
`
` Q. Are you able to click on that and open it?
`
` A. It's preparing download.
`
` Q. Very good.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
` MR. HERRIGES: This is what has previously been
`
`marked as Exhibit 1004.
`
` Q. Will you just let me know, Mr. Hill, when
`
`that's been downloaded.
`
` A. Okay. I have it in -- in the Acrobat Reader.
`
` Q. And are you able to scroll up and down and go
`
`to whatever portion of that report that you -- that you
`
`would like?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Good. So looking at Exhibit 4, which,
`
`to the best of my knowledge, is a copy of your report,
`
`will you just verify the final page, page 64, and, of
`
`course, look through it if you like to confirm that this
`
`is indeed a copy of the report that you submitted in the
`
`matter on February 7th, 2020.
`
` A. Yes, this is the declaration.
`
` Q. And, similar to your testimony today, do you
`
`understand that by submitting this declaration to a
`
`United States agency, that it, too, like the other
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`declarants in this case, is subject to the penalty of
`
`perjury?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. I'd like you to turn to paragraph 3 of
`
`your report, please. Are you there, sir?
`
` A. Is that paragraph 3 under section I, under --
`
`under "Introduction"?
`
` Q. Yes, sir.
`
` A. So page 2?
`
` Q. Page 2, paragraph 3.
`
` You say this -- "The following is my report."
`
`What exactly do you mean by that?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: It's my declaration and report
`
`of -- at -- the opinion of the question I've been asked.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. And so -- I mean, do you mean that you
`
`wrote the report when you say "it's my report"?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. You wrote the report yourself, you said?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I wrote the report with support
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`of counsel.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. How -- how was the report prepared? Can you
`
`explain that to me?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; privilege.
`
` Mr. Hill, do not disclose the substance of any
`
`conversations or discussions with -- with attorneys or
`
`any work product of a privileged nature.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: And I'll -- I mean, there is no
`
`privilege between you and Mr. Hill. So I think you need
`
`to change your objection.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Well, the substance of -- the
`
`privilege would relate to the substance of discussions
`
`with attorneys.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: No, it doesn't. There's no
`
`attorney-client privilege between you and Mr. Hill.
`
` Q. Let me reask my question.
`
` Did the attorneys present you with a draft of
`
`your report in this case, Mr. Hill?
`
` A. I prepared my notes and my major points, and
`
`then they shared their draft to compare it with my
`
`draft.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm getting this straight here, you
`
`prepared some notes. Is that right?
`
` A. I prepared more than notes. I prepared a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`structured --
`
` Q. You --
`
` A. -- a structured --
`
` Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
`
` A. I prepared structured points. And then we
`
`worked together to draft the declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. So when you say "structured points," do
`
`you mean an outline? Is that right?
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Okay. So you prepared an outline, and then did
`
`you present that to LKQ's attorneys?
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you draft that outline by yourself,
`
`or did -- did you have a call with LKQ's attorneys
`
`before that outline was drafted?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you state that again?
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. Did you have a call with LKQ's attorneys
`
`before you prepared your outline or did you prepare your
`
`outline and then have a call with LKQ's attorneys?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Go ahead, sir. I'm just trying to get the
`
`timeline down here.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` A. I had several calls with LKQ, on -- on a
`
`multiple of declarations and matters. And after that I
`
`prepared the outline and draft points, and then we
`
`worked back and forth.
`
` Q. Okay. So you had some calls with LKQ's
`
`attorneys, and then you prepared an outline with draft
`
`points, fair?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague, mischaracterizes.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you ask that again, please?
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. You had a series of calls, you said, with LKQ's
`
`attorneys, and then you prepared an outline as it
`
`relates to your declaration on the '625 file; is that
`
`right?
`
` And I understand there may be steps after that.
`
`I'm just trying to get the timeline right.
`
` A. Yes. I mean, there was several -- you know,
`
`several -- again, several calls, and then I worked
`
`through several draft reports that -- that stated and
`
`worked to outline of all --
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; privilege.
`
` I do not think you need to go into the content
`
`of the draft reports. Those are protected under FRCP.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm not asking you about the content
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`of the reports. I'm asking you about the general
`
`process. So after you prepared an outline, what was the
`
`next written product that was -- that was prepared? Was
`
`it a full draft report or was it something else?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; privilege. I don't think
`
`you're entitled to detailed disclosures regarding the
`
`drafting process, because the drafts themselves are
`
`protected.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: I don't agree. And your -- your
`
`objection to privilege is not the -- there is no
`
`privilege. So, look, I mean, if you're going to
`
`instruct him not to answer, so be it, but I'm going to
`
`ask the question again.
`
` Q. Mr. Hill, after you prepared the outline, did
`
`you prepare a written draft of the report?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection.
`
` And Mr. Hill, I don't think you need to -- I
`
`don't think you need to answer in that level of detail.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Are you not going to tell me whether you
`
`drafted the report or not, Mr. Hill?
`
` A. Well, that -- that's not the -- I didn't
`
`understand that to be the question.
`
` Q. Let me ask it again.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` Did you -- did you write the first draft of
`
`your report?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance, and
`
`nondiscoverable information under FRCP 26, I believe
`
`it's (b)(4)(C) or (b)(4)(B).
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Mr. Hill, did you draft the first draft of your
`
`report?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I consider my -- my outline, my
`
`draft outline, as the -- as the initial draft.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. But you didn't -- you didn't draft it in
`
`a form that it's currently presented in, right, that was
`
`submitted to the patent office? Well, did you or didn't
`
`you?
`
` A. Ask that again.
`
` Q. You drafted an outline. Did you draft the
`
`second draft of your report or not?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection, and vague, and
`
`mischaracterizes.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah, I mean, Mr. Hill, feel free to tell me
`
`how it is. I'm -- I'm trying to understand if you -- I
`
`understand you drafted an outline, but did you draft a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`full draft of your report after that outline or not?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objections.
`
` THE WITNESS: I think I can answer in -- in
`
`specifically '625 case, I do not recall if I did two
`
`drafts and then worked with the team, or one or even
`
`three, because there was several declarations being
`
`considered and being created.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. When you say there were several declarations
`
`being created, there were other patents that you were
`
`offering an opinion on? Is that what you're referring
`
`to?
`
` A. That is correct.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Relevance.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. And you don't recall, sitting here today,
`
`whether you did the first post-outline draft of the '625
`
`declaration?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; mischaracterizes, vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, each -- because there was
`
`several declarations being created, I don't recall
`
`specifically if this was one or two or three and then
`
`went to the attorneys' side, or the LKQ side. But in
`
`general, for all of them, I would start with a -- kind
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`of an outline of the basics, including the -- you know,
`
`including the introductions of who I am, and then work
`
`through the major points and then present them to be --
`
`to be correlated into the declaration.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Let me try and ask my question again. I may
`
`not have been clear.
`
` For the '625 declaration, for Exhibit 1004,
`
`that we're looking at right now, do you recall whether
`
`you drafted the first post-outline draft of this report?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe I've answered
`
`that.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Well, I don't think you have, sir. I think --
`
`that's not -- I'm just trying to get an answer to this,
`
`on this declaration. Did you draft the first
`
`post-outline draft of your declaration on the '625
`
`patent?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance, asked and
`
`answered.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. If you can't recall, that's fine, too. I'm
`
`just trying to get a -- get a straight response on this.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; mischaracterizes,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`relevance, asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: As it -- let me -- let me make
`
`sure I understand this. As it -- or try to answer it
`
`this way: As it pertains to substance, yes; as it
`
`pertains to structure of the actual report, no. So one
`
`came first, which is the substance, and then the
`
`structure. And that's generally how -- how I work.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. So you did draft the substance of this
`
`report?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And you ensured that the final
`
`version of this report represented your words, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. And you ensured that they're not representing
`
`someone else's words; is that right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague, relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes, quite so.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Good.
`
` How much time, roughly, did you spend working
`
`on the '625 declaration?
`
` A. I would estimate somewhere between 20 and 30
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`hours, at least. Estimate.
`
` Q. Understood. And during the course of that 20
`
`to 30 hours, I take it that you reviewed the prior art
`
`that was at issue. Is that right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; foundation, and vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Do you understand my question, Mr. Hill, about
`
`whether you reviewed the prior art you opined on or not?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you review the prior art you
`
`opined on in this matter?
`
` A. Amongst many others, yes.
`
` Q. All right. Did you find the prior art that's
`
`cited in your declaration or did LKQ's lawyers?
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
` MR. HERRIGES: Of course.
`
` Q. Did you find the prior art that is cited in
`
`your declaration or did LKQ's lawyers find it?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance. And -- well,
`
`go ahead and answer to the extent (audio dropout) --
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Ifti, I didn't hear
`
`that other part.
`
` MR. ZAIM: I said objection; relevance. And
`
`you can answer to the extent that you don't disclose the
`
`substance of communications with attorneys.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: And, again, I disagree with that
`
`as a proper objection.
`
` Q. But I think you can answer the question, so --
`
`I mean, let me reask it, but -- did you find the prior
`
`art cited in your declaration?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Same objection.
`
` THE WITNESS: I found the prior art for the
`
`secondary, and I believe, if I recall -- I believe LKQ
`
`found the primary reference.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. The primary reference is the Lian reference; is
`
`that right?
`
` A. Correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you draft -- let me start that
`
`question over.
`
` There's a series of annotations, an example of
`
`which is on page 21 if you care to look. But my
`
`question is, did you draft these figures or did someone
`
`else?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: These are the final annotations.
`
`My initial annotations were not -- were not these.
`
`These are the final edited versions, under my guidance.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. All right. And you -- you were careful,
`
`I take it, to make sure that those figures represented
`
`your best belief as to what was disclosed in the prior
`
`art; is that right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: The question was, was I careful?
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. Were you careful at the -- before you
`
`signed your report to make sure that the annotations
`
`were accurate?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you work with anyone else to prepare your
`
`report other than LKQ's attorneys?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did you speak with Mr. Gandy to prepare your
`
`report?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know what Mr. Gandy's qualifications
`
`are?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance, scope,
`
`foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I know of them only having read
`
`his declaration briefly. But I couldn't recall -- well,
`
`I'll leave it at that. I do know of them from having
`
`read the declaration.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Gandy
`
`before?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. And you said you reviewed his
`
`declaration in the last week or so. Is that roughly
`
`right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; mischaracterizes.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would -- I would say it was
`
`approximately about -- a little over a week ago, maybe
`
`ten days ago.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Yeah. And I'm just -- you mentioned
`
`that you reviewed Mr. Gandy's declaration to prepare for
`
`today. And what I hear you telling me is that was
`
`within the last two weeks. Is that right?
`
` A. Correct. It was recent.
`
` Q. Okay. Is that the first time you'd reviewed
`
`Mr. Gandy's declaration?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you see any drafts of Mr. Gandy's
`
`declaration?
`
` A. I'm sorry. Say that again.
`
` Q. Yeah. I'm sorry. Did you see any drafts of
`
`Mr. Gandy's declaration?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Jason C. Hill - October 19, 2020
`
`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
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know if Mr. Gandy has any design
`
`experience?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance, foundation,
`
`scope.
`
` THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. And did you -- other than Mr. Gandy's
`
`declaration that you reviewed ten or so days ago, have
`
`you reviewed any written material that Mr. Gandy
`
`prepared, to your knowledge?
`
` A. No, nothing.
`
` Q. And I apologize if I already asked this
`
`question. I maybe did. But did you review a draft of
`
`Mr. Gandy's declaration?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; asked and answered.
`
` THE WITNESS: I did not.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Sorry. I must have asked it. So I apologize
`
`for that.
`
` And I -- if you go to paragraph 3 of your
`
`report again -- and just let me know when you're there,
`
`sir.
`
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
