James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` JAMES M. GANDY
`
` Thursday, October 22, 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 2007
`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
`
` JAMES M. GANDY
`
` Thursday, October 22, 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 2007
`LKQ v. GM
`IPR2020-00534
`
`1
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 2020
`
`Page 2
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
`
` Page
`
`WITNESS:
`
`JAMES M. GANDY
`
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Herriges
`
` 4
`
` EXHIBITS REFERENCED
`
` Exhibit 1003
`
` Exhibit 1004
`
` ---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
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 2020
`
`Page 3
`
` BE IT REMEMBERED that, pursuant to the laws
`
`governing the taking and use of depositions, on
`
`Thursday, October 22, 2020, commencing at 9:58 a.m.,
`
`before me, JOHN WISSENBACH, CSR 6862, of San Francisco,
`
`California, appeared through videoconference JAMES M.
`
`GANDY, at Southport, North Carolina, 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
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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. Good morning, Mr. Gandy. How are you?
`
` A. Oh, okay.
`
` Q. State your full name and residential address
`
`for the record, please.
`
` A. My name is James M. Gandy. My address is 5961
`
`Spikerush Trail, Southport, North Carolina 28461.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. And you've been deposed
`
`before, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you know roughly how many times?
`
` A. Before this one, I believe five times.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever been deposed in a remote
`
`deposition like this, or is this your first one?
`
` A. No, this is the first time doing a remote.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, if you have any concerns or any
`
`issues accessing documents, or anything like that, or
`
`clarification due to the remote nature of the
`
`proceedings, will you let me know?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. So you know the drill, but I'll
`
`just run through the protocol here real quick. You
`
`understand that although this deposition is remote,
`
`Mr. Wissenbach is taking down your testimony as the
`
`court reporter here today?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`4
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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. Yes, I understand that.
`
` Q. And you understand that your testimony could be
`
`presented to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board in this
`
`case?
`
` A. Yes, I understand.
`
` Q. Okay. And you understand that you're under
`
`oath?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And you understand that although the deposition
`
`is remote and we're obviously not in a courtroom,
`
`there's no judge, that that oath carries the same
`
`seriousness as it would if we were in court and is
`
`subject to the same penalties of perjury? You
`
`understand that, correct?
`
` A. Yes, I understand that.
`
` Q. All right. Have you ever been deposed in a
`
`PTAB proceeding before?
`
` A. I'm sorry. What was that?
`
` Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken in
`
`connection with a PTAB proceeding before?
`
` A. I'm -- I didn't catch the last part of that.
`
` Q. Yeah. Have you ever had your deposition taken
`
`in connection with a PTAB proceeding or an IPR?
`
` A. Yes. Yes, I have. You're referencing IPR.
`
`That's what I understand. Yes, I have.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`5
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` Q. Okay. And so you know that in this forum we
`
`may take breaks but that the rules don't permit you to
`
`confer with LKQ's lawyers about the substance of your
`
`deposition while you're being deposed?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And we can agree that you'll abide by that
`
`rule?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. Is there any reason, medical or
`
`otherwise, you can't tell the complete truth during
`
`today's deposition?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. I want to ask a little bit about what you did
`
`to prepare for today's deposition, starting with whether
`
`you had any meetings with LKQ's attorneys.
`
` A. Yes. I had -- I had two meetings with the --
`
`Ifti Zaim from Irwin IP to discuss my report and the
`
`deposition.
`
` Q. Okay. And when did those meetings take place?
`
` A. One was on this past Tuesday, the 20th. I
`
`think the first one was on October 6th. I believe it
`
`was a Tuesday.
`
` Q. Okay. So you had one -- or excuse me, one
`
`meeting on October 6th and then one meeting on it would
`
`have been October 20th; is that right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`6
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you meet with anybody other than
`
`Mr. Zaim?
`
` A. No, I did not.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you discuss your deposition with
`
`anyone else in order to prepare for today?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. Okay. And did you review any materials to get
`
`ready for today?
`
` A. Did I review any materials while -- while I was
`
`discussing these -- these -- at these meetings?
`
` Q. Yeah, but -- we can start -- we can start
`
`there. Did you review any materials as part of your
`
`preparation for today?
`
` A. I reviewed my -- my declaration, I reviewed
`
`General Motors' preliminary response, I reviewed the
`
`board's initial decision, And I did review Irwin IP's
`
`petition for the IPR.
`
` Q. Okay. Did you review any other documents, to
`
`your knowledge, to prepare for your deposition today?
`
` A. I briefly looked at Mr. Hill's declaration.
`
` Q. Okay. When was the first time you saw
`
`Mr. Hill's declaration?
`
` A. Probably about -- right before the first
`
`meeting we had, on the 6th.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`7
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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 between October 1st and 5th? Does
`
`that roughly sound right?
`
` A. Yeah. Yeah.
`
` Q. And had you seen a draft of that report prior
`
`to October 1st?
`
` A. No. No.
`
` Q. Had you seen the final version prior to October
`
`1st?
`
` A. Had I seen the final version of that report?
`
` Q. Prior to October 1st.
`
` A. No. No.
`
` Q. And you've not spoken to Mr. Hill; is that
`
`correct?
`
` A. That's correct. I've never met Mr. Hill or
`
`spoken with him.
`
` Q. All right. You're aware, though, that he was
`
`deposed on Monday, I take it?
`
` A. Yes, I was aware of that. Yes.
`
` Q. Have you reviewed Mr. Hill's deposition
`
`transcript?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you reviewed any portions at all of
`
`that transcript?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. I want to talk a little bit about your
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`8
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`background, Mr. Gandy. And if you care to, I can
`
`mark -- well, I'm going to assume you know -- know
`
`pretty much -- pretty well about your background without
`
`seeing the -- seeing the report. But before I do that,
`
`I will ask, do you have any materials in front of you
`
`today?
`
` A. The only thing I have in front of me is a
`
`couple of the pages from my declaration with respect to
`
`the -- the patent and the primary reference.
`
` Q. What pages are those, sir?
`
` A. On my declaration, it's page 33 and 34.
`
` Q. And that would be paragraphs 54 and 55; is that
`
`right?
`
` A. Yes. Yes.
`
` Q. Are there any other pages of your declaration
`
`that you have in front of you right now?
`
` A. I have page 54, which is showing the image of
`
`the primary reference and the secondary reference and
`
`page 57, which is showing the patented design and the
`
`secondary reference, and page 58, which again is showing
`
`the patented design and the secondary reference.
`
` Q. Okay. I was scanning through, so I want to
`
`make sure I've got this right. I've got 33 and 34. And
`
`then you said you have pages 55, 57, and 58; is that
`
`right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`9
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. 54, 57, and 58.
`
` Q. Okay. Why do you have those particular pages
`
`selected and in front of you today?
`
` A. I feel they're important with respect to what
`
`my -- what I was talking about in my declaration with
`
`respect to patentability or lack of patentability or
`
`invalidity.
`
` Q. Well, why are those pages, though, more
`
`important than others?
`
` A. Well, I think they show the images of the
`
`claimed design, patented design, as well as the primary
`
`reference that I considered to be -- anticipate or
`
`render obvious the claimed design, as well as the
`
`secondary reference that I considered to, in conjunction
`
`with the primary reference, render the claimed design
`
`obvious.
`
` Q. I mean, is it fair to say that these are images
`
`that you thought showed the references in a way to just
`
`keep them in front of you, have them straight?
`
` A. I think they -- they represent the best images
`
`that I've seen of comparing the claimed design with the
`
`prior art.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have -- other than the five pages
`
`that you've mentioned to me, do you have anything else
`
`in front of you right now?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`10
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. No, I do not.
`
` Q. Excuse me.
`
` Okay. So back to your background, sir. You
`
`have under your qualifications stated here that you have
`
`a degree in architectural design technology from Temple;
`
`is that right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Did your degree involve vehicle design in any
`
`way?
`
` A. I'm sorry. What was that?
`
` Q. Did your degree involve vehicle design in any
`
`way?
`
` A. No, it did not.
`
` Q. And you've never worked for a vehicle design
`
`firm; is that right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you've never worked for an automotive
`
`company, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Have you worked for a vehicle company of any
`
`kind?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you ever designed a vehicle?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`11
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. And you've never supervised the design of a
`
`vehicle, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Has any of your consulting work involved
`
`designing a vehicle?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you know -- do you know what kind of
`
`software is currently used by vehicle designers in
`
`connection with vehicle designs?
`
` A. No. No.
`
` Q. Do you have any patents related to vehicle
`
`design?
`
` A. Do I have any patents?
`
` Q. Yes, sir.
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you have any -- do you have any
`
`patents at all? Are you a named inventor on any
`
`patents?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you know what the difference is
`
`between a concavity line and an inflection line as those
`
`terms are used by designers?
`
` A. Yes. Sure.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`12
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Could you explain that to me?
`
` A. A con --
`
` MR. ZAIM: You may answer, Mr. Gandy.
`
` THE WITNESS: Okay. A concavity line would
`
`basically be an indication of a change in contour in the
`
`surface of -- of an article, in this instance the fender
`
`design. An inflection line, my understanding, my
`
`interpretation of an inflection line, would be a line
`
`that merely represents the -- the apex of a continuous
`
`curvature.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. And you say "my understanding." Is the
`
`term "inflection line" one that you'd used prior to
`
`submitting your report in this case?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: I can't say I would necessarily
`
`have used the term "inflection." What I -- what my
`
`understanding of inflection is, that it basically is the
`
`same thing as an apex.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. And where did you get that
`
`understanding?
`
` A. That's just from my own knowledge.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`13
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` Q. No, I'm sorry. Where did you get the
`
`understanding to use the term "inflection line" in this
`
`report if you hadn't previously used it?
`
` A. Oh, this -- well, this was a term that the --
`
`that -- in developing the report with the Irwin IP
`
`attorneys that they preferred to use. So I have no
`
`problem with it as long as I understand it to represent
`
`my term as it being an apex.
`
` Q. Okay. So the "inflection line" is a term
`
`that -- that the Irwin firm had come up with to use?
`
` A. Yeah, that was the term that they preferred to
`
`use.
`
` Q. All right. Do you know what a theoretical line
`
`is? Have you ever heard of that term before?
`
` A. I can't say I've, you know -- not in general,
`
`no.
`
` Q. Have you heard -- have you heard of it as it
`
`relates to the --
`
` A. Well, I would use the term "theoretical line"
`
`as being a line that might be on a drawing to
`
`indicate -- if it -- if it has no other -- no other
`
`purpose other than to possibly indicate a change in
`
`contour, that's what I would understand a theoretical
`
`line. It doesn't actually exist, but it's only in a
`
`drawing to indicate some change in contour.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`14
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` Q. Okay. And would you refer to any of the lines
`
`on the '625 patent as a theoretical line?
`
` A. I -- personally? Personally, I feel that the
`
`concavity -- what was identified as a concavity line is
`
`a theoretical line. I think it's only there in the
`
`drawings of the '625 patent to indicate there's a -- a
`
`change in contour, a -- there's a -- between the -- the
`
`two crease lines, the first -- the upper crease line and
`
`the lower crease line. I think the inflection line,
`
`which identifies the inflection line, is really not an
`
`existent line, that -- at least not in these -- in these
`
`drawings, anyway. To me, it represents nothing more
`
`than where the curvature of the fender coming down from
`
`the top protrudes out and then at that point started --
`
`begins to protrude inwardly.
`
` Q. I'm going to mark here your report. So this is
`
`just going to take a second.
`
` I'm sending it through the chat function in
`
`Zoom, and you should be able to -- oops, it -- I
`
`apologize. It still has the Hill designation on it,
`
`which is -- it shouldn't be on the document itself,
`
`but -- it's the same exhibit that was used in Mr. Hill's
`
`deposition, but substantively it's the same.
`
` Can you let me know when you've received that,
`
`Mr. Gandy?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`15
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. Is it something that should show up on the
`
`screen?
`
` Q. It should come in the chat function.
`
` A. Oh, okay. All right. I see where it --
`
` Q. Oh, good. Okay.
`
` A. I don't know what's going on there.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Did you see the document, Mr. Gandy?
`
` If you -- if you look at the bottom of your
`
`screen, there should be a bar that says "Participants"
`
`and then "Chat," and there should be a little red 1 next
`
`to "Chat." If you click on "Chat" --
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I clicked on the chat.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: Ifti, can we go off the record
`
`for a second while we get this sorted out?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Of course.
`
` MR. HERRIGES: John, we'll go off the record,
`
`please.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Mr. Gandy, I've sent to you and you have
`
`received Exhibit 1003, correct?
`
` A. Yeah. I'm trying to open it up right now.
`
` Okay. Okay. It's -- okay. It's my
`
`declaration. Is that what you're talking about?
`
` Q. Yes. And you've got the document open?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`16
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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. Okay. Yes.
`
` Q. And are you able to scan through it and view
`
`all the pages and paragraphs?
`
` A. Everything appears to be here, yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Before we took a little break, we were
`
`talking about theoretical lines, right?
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Could you turn to page 36 of your declaration.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay. And you've got a chart there, do you see
`
`that, with figure 2 from the '625 patent?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And then you've got the first crease
`
`line labeled, the concavity line labeled, and the second
`
`crease line labeled, right?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. And then you don't have it labeled here, but
`
`that bottom line is the inflection line, right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And so just with this in front of you,
`
`which of those four lines do you think is a theoretical
`
`line?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; relevance.
`
` THE WITNESS: The -- the concavity line and the
`
`inflection line are theoretical -- I believe are
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`17
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`theoretical lines.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. What -- and you don't think the first
`
`crease and the second crease are theoretical?
`
` A. No. No, I think they're -- they actually
`
`are -- define existing lines.
`
` Q. Okay. What are the differences between the
`
`second crease and the inflection line if you look at
`
`figure 2 and figure 1 below it? What are the
`
`differences that make you believe the inflection line
`
`is -- is a theoretical line?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; compound.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that?
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yes. What are the differences between the
`
`second crease and the inflection line that lead you to
`
`believe the inflection line is theoretical and the
`
`second crease is not?
`
` A. Well, I -- I think that the -- the reason why I
`
`think the inflection line is theoretical -- and I'm
`
`relying on -- this is all relying on my experience as a
`
`design patent examiner, examining this particular
`
`subject matter -- is that the shading above and below
`
`that inflection line are indicating that there is a
`
`change in the contour of the fender. And that line
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`18
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`merely appears to be for the purpose of indicating the
`
`apex of that curvature of the fender.
`
` Q. Okay. But you would agree that the second
`
`crease, what you call a second crease, shows a line on
`
`figure 2 and figure 1, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And the inflection line shows a line on figure
`
`1 and figure 2, right?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague, mischaracterizes.
`
` THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that again?
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. The inflection line -- there is a line
`
`indicated on figure 2 and figure 1, correct?
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. Okay. And the second crease has vertical
`
`contour lines on it, right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague, mischaracterizes.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. The inflection line, similarly, has vertical
`
`contour lines on it, right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Mischaracterizes.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
` MR. ZAIM: I apologize. It was objection;
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`19
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`mischaracterizes the document.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. So we've marked your report -- it's
`
`previously been marked as Exhibit 1003. And you're
`
`familiar, Mr. Gandy -- you've received declarations, I
`
`take it, as part of your work in the patent office?
`
` A. I'm sorry. What was that?
`
` Q. When you were a patent examiner, did you
`
`receive and review declarations from fact or expert
`
`witnesses?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. And you are aware, though, that your
`
`declaration, similar to your testimony today, is subject
`
`to the penalties of perjury under 18 USC 1001?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. If you go to paragraph 19, please.
`
`I'd like to ask about your work for Ford in what appears
`
`to be an ITC matter.
`
` A. Paragraph 19?
`
` Q. Yes, sir.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Can you tell me at a high level what you were
`
`doing for Ford?
`
` A. I'm sorry. Tell you what?
`
` Q. Can you tell me what your role was in that case
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`20
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`on Ford's behalf?
`
` A. Yeah. I was retained as -- as an expert
`
`witness in a case to review the -- basically to review
`
`a -- an issue raised on those design patents with
`
`respect to the drawings being indefinite.
`
` Q. Okay. And those were Ford's patents, I take
`
`it?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And was it your opinion, then, that the designs
`
`were not indefinite?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. All right. Do you remember what the part was?
`
` A. They were parts to a Ford Mustang. I believe
`
`it was the 2005 Ford Mustang.
`
` Q. Do you remember what parts of the Mustang the
`
`patents covered?
`
` A. I believe -- I believe one was on the hood. I
`
`would have to go back and look and see what the other
`
`parts were. I do believe one was on the hood. I can't
`
`quite remember what the other ones were.
`
` Q. There's not a date on this, at least in
`
`paragraph 19. Do you remember when that work took place
`
`for Ford?
`
` A. It was in 2008.
`
` Q. Did that case go to trial or to a final
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`21
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`hearing?
`
` A. I'm sorry.
`
` Q. Did the case go --
`
` A. I'm sorry. What was that?
`
` Q. Did the case go to trial or to a final hearing
`
`before the ITC?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Did it settle, to your knowledge?
`
` A. I'm sorry. What was that?
`
` Q. Did it settle?
`
` A. Yes. Yes.
`
` Q. Were you deposed in that matter?
`
` A. No, I was not.
`
` Q. Did you submit a expert report of any kind?
`
` A. Yes, I did.
`
` Q. More than one?
`
` A. From the best of my knowledge, it was one.
`
` Q. And to the best of your recollection, your
`
`opinion, generally speaking, was that certain patents
`
`were not indefinite?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Did you offer any other opinions as part of
`
`that work for Ford?
`
` A. I don't -- I seem to remember that was -- that
`
`was what the -- that's all that my -- my report was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`22
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`about.
`
` Q. All right. You list a number of other cases in
`
`paragraph 19.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Do any of those cases, other than the one for
`
`Ford, involve automobiles?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Other than the work you've done in this case
`
`for LKQ and for Ford in the case that you mentioned in
`
`paragraph 19, have you consulted with any automotive
`
`companies?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. How much time did you spend preparing your
`
`declaration in this case?
`
` A. In this case?
`
` Q. Yes, sir.
`
` Sorry, the -- in the LKQ case that we're
`
`talking about right now.
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah, let me -- let me reask that. I'm not
`
`asking about the Ford case now. I'm asking, how much
`
`time did you spend preparing your declaration, Exhibit
`
`1003?
`
` A. I'd have to go back and look at my notes. I
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`23
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`don't -- I don't know exactly. I couldn't give you an
`
`exact amount of time.
`
` Q. Could you give me an estimate?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Calls for speculation.
`
` (Discussion off the record.)
`
` MR. ZAIM: Speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: Off the top of my head, 20, 20
`
`hours.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Did you, yourself, write the substance
`
`of the report?
`
` A. I wrote it in conjunction with the attorneys
`
`for Irwin IP. I gave them my opinion on the issue of
`
`validity based on anticipation and obviousness in view
`
`of the prior art that was applied, and we worked in --
`
`worked with them in developing the -- the report.
`
` Q. Okay. But did you, yourself, write any of the
`
`substance of the report?
`
` A. I probably -- I'm sure I wrote, you know, some
`
`of the -- some of the specific language. I might have
`
`been back and forth with them on what I was -- felt was
`
`the appropriate language with respect to the merits of
`
`the claimed design.
`
` Q. Can you point me to any part of your report
`
`that you wrote?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`24
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` MR. ZAIM: And objection. The drafting --
`
`drafts of a report are not discoverable. So don't go
`
`into -- and correspondence between attorneys and experts
`
`are not discoverable, so just cautioning the witness not
`
`to go into the substance of those things, discussions
`
`back and forth with the attorneys and prior drafts.
`
`Otherwise (audio dropout) --
`
` MR. HERRIGES: Yeah. Let -- sorry. I didn't
`
`mean to cut you off, Ifti. Are you done?
`
` MR. ZAIM: I said go ahead.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Let me reask my question, Mr. Gandy,
`
`subject to the objections that were made.
`
` Can you point me to any part of the report that
`
`you, yourself, wrote?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: I would have to go -- delve into
`
`going through the report. What I would -- would say is
`
`that the specifics of the application of the references,
`
`I -- you know, some of the language in there I'm sure
`
`was language that I had suggested to the Irwin
`
`attorneys.
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Okay. Well, let's -- let's -- let's turn to
`
`that, then. Could you go to paragraph 35?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`25
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
` A. 75?
`
` Q. 35, sir. Three five.
`
` Did you write this paragraph, sir?
`
` A. Hang on. Let me get it up here.
`
` I would -- I would say that I did not write
`
`exactly that. I worked with them. They -- they asked
`
`me about -- because we're dealing with claim
`
`construction. That's not something that I was -- that I
`
`did as an examiner. So I would say that, no, I
`
`didn't -- I didn't, you know, write this. I understand
`
`what the purpose of claim construction is and what they
`
`identified in it, and I concurred with them on that.
`
` Q. But you don't have prior experience with claim
`
`construction? Is that what you're saying?
`
` A. Yeah. No, I'm not -- I mean, claim
`
`construction basically, you know, you're -- gets into
`
`when you're in litigation, I mean, not -- other than
`
`being retained as an expert witness in litigation, I'm
`
`not some -- someone who has -- who has actually
`
`identified, you know, or, you know, set out the claim
`
`construction.
`
` Q. Okay. So you don't -- you don't yourself have
`
`an opinion in the claim construction in this case?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; mischaracterizes the
`
`testimony, calls for a legal conclusion, and vague.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`26
`
`
`
`James M. Gandy - October 22, 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
`
`BY MR. HERRIGES:
`
` Q. Yeah. I'm trying to -- you said you don't have
`
`experience in claim construction, correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And so -- and you can't recall writing
`
`paragraph 35, that deals with claim construction,
`
`correct?
`
` A. Yeah, no, I did not write paragraph 35. That,
`
`again, is not -- is not what I was retained in this case
`
`to -- to do.
`
` Q. Okay. And so you, yourself, don't have a
`
`specific opinion on claim construction in this case?
`
` MR. ZAIM: Objection; calls for a legal
`
`conclusion, mischaracterizes the testimony, and vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: What I would say is that I agree
`
`with what was w
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
