`
`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