CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`-vs-
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2020-00860
`
`US Patent 10,326,942
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2020-00487
`
`US Patent 9,661,233
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
` CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
` Remote Deposition of FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` June 2, 2021 - 10:00 A.M. EDT
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No.: 2443
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`-vs-
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2020-00860
`
`US Patent 10,326,942
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
`IPR2020-00487
`
`US Patent 9,661,233
`
`-------------------------------------------
`
` CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
` Remote Deposition of FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` June 2, 2021 - 10:00 A.M. EDT
`
`Reported by:
`
`S. Arielle Santos
`
`Job No.: 2443
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 1
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 2
`
` JUNE 2, 2021
`
` 10:00 A.M. EDT
`
` REMOTE DEPOSITION of FREDO DURAND, PhD,
`
`before S. Arielle Santos, Certified Court
`
`Reporter, Certified LiveNote Reporter and Notary
`
`Public.
`
`1 2 3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
` COUNSEL FOR APPLE:
`
` BY - HONG SHI, ESQ.
`
` BY - DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQ.
`
` HAYNES AND BOONE
`
` 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
`
` Austin, TX 78701
`
` hong.shi@haynesboone.com
`
` david.obrien@haynesboone.com
`
` COUNSEL FOR COREPHOTONICS:
`
` BY - JAMES TSUEI, ESQ.
`
` RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
` 12424 Wilshire Blvd
`
` Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
` jtsuei@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
`
`
`
` FREDO DURAND
`
` BY MR. TSUEI 6
`
` BY MS. SHI 256
`
` BY MR. TSUEI 281
`
`
`
`
`
` EXHIBITS MARKED - ATTACHED
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2101, Multi-Aperture 54
`
` photography
`
` Exhibit 2102 - Merriam-Webster 91
`
` Dictionary Definitions Depend
`
` On/Upon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 4
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm going to
`
` make a statement before I swear in
`
` the witness. I ask the parties to
`
` stipulate to the following:
`
` The attorneys participating
`
` in this deposition acknowledge
`
` that I am not physically present
`
` in the deposition room and that I
`
` will be reporting this deposition
`
` remotely.
`
` They further acknowledge
`
` that, in lieu of an oath
`
` administered in person, the
`
` witness will verbally declare
`
` their testimony in this matter
`
` under penalty of perjury.
`
` The parties and their counsel
`
` consent to this arrangement and
`
` waive any objections to this
`
` manner of reporting.
`
` Please indicate your
`
` agreement by stating your name and
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 5
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` your agreement on the record.
`
` MR. TSUEI: This is James
`
` Tsuei for the patent owner
`
` Corephotonics; we agree and so
`
` stipulate.
`
` MS. SHI: Hong Shi from
`
` Haynes & Boone representing
`
` Petitioner and the witness; also
`
` agree to the stipulation.
`
`
`
` FREDO DURAND, Testifies under penalty of
`
` perjury as follows:
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
`
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Hello, Dr. Durand.
`
` A Hello.
`
` Q Where are you located right now?
`
` A I am in Somerville,
`
` Massachusetts.
`
` Q Is that near MIT?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 6
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A It's close enough.
`
` Q How many times have you had your
`
` deposition taken before?
`
` A Roughly five or six.
`
` Q You have had your deposition
`
` taken at least once before in these IPRs
`
` back in January of this year; is that
`
` right?
`
` A That's correct.
`
` Q You have had your deposition
`
` taken before in a district court case
`
` where you were an inventor on one of the
`
` patents at issue in that case.
`
` Is that correct to say?
`
` A That's right.
`
` Q And that district court case I
`
` just mentioned, how long ago was that
`
` case in terms of when you gave your
`
` deposition?
`
` A It was a long time ago; more
`
` than five years, maybe around ten. I
`
` can't recall exactly.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 7
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q Okay.
`
` And you said just now you have
`
` had your deposition taken five or six
`
` times.
`
` What were the other times in
`
` which you have given depositions?
`
` A I have given depositions in
`
` other cases involving Corephotonics and
`
` Apple. I can't remember exactly how many
`
` times.
`
` Q Aside from your deposition
`
` testimony given in these inter partes
`
` review cases between Apple and
`
` Corephotonics, have you given any other
`
` depositions?
`
` A Well, there is the other
`
` deposition we mentioned from 10 years
`
` ago, but other than that, no.
`
` Q And aside from your involvement
`
` on behalf of Apple in these inter partes
`
` review proceedings, is it correct to say
`
` you have not served before as an expert
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 8
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` witness?
`
` A That's right.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` And so I would like to set a
`
` couple of ground rules. Given that this
`
` is a recorded deposition, there's a court
`
` reporter transcribing what is being said.
`
` So first, can we agree that you
`
` and I try not to talk over one another?
`
` A Yes. I will do my best.
`
` Q Could we agree that you will let
`
` me finish asking my questions before you
`
` begin your answers, generally speaking?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q If you don't understand one of
`
` my questions at any point, could you
`
` please let me know and I will try to
`
` clarify?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And if you do answer one of my
`
` questions, can we assume that you felt
`
` like you understood the question and that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 9
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you're answering at least to the extent
`
` that you are able to answer?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q If at any point in today's
`
` deposition you need a break, let me know
`
` and I will try to make arrangements for
`
` having a break in the deposition. I will
`
` ask, though, that if there is a pending
`
` question on the record that you first
`
` answer that question before we take a
`
` break.
`
` Can we agree to that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So Dr. Durand, can you confirm
`
` your understanding that your testimony
`
` for today's deposition is for two inter
`
` partes review proceedings involving Apple
`
` and Corephotonics?
`
` A Yes, that's my understanding.
`
` Q And for the record, those two
`
` IPR proceedings have the numbers
`
` IPR2020-00860 and IPR2020-00487.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 10
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Is that correct as well?
`
` A Yes. That's my understanding
`
` involving patents ending in '233 and
`
` '942, possibly in the wrong order.
`
` Q I don't think there's a correct
`
` order, so...
`
` I think based on your answer
`
` just now, I will also be referring to the
`
` '942 and '233 patents.
`
` And when I use those terms, it
`
` sounds like you will understand what I am
`
` referring to; is that fair?
`
` A Yes. I meant the wrong order
`
` compared to the cases' number order that
`
` you used.
`
` Q Dr. Durand, I may refer to these
`
` two IPR proceedings together today as
`
` "these IPRs," or "these proceedings."
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And when I use those terms, I
`
` generally mean an intent to refer to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 11
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` those two IPR proceedings as opposed to
`
` some broader collection of IPRs in which
`
` you are involved on behalf of Apple.
`
` Is it fair that we will proceed
`
` with that understanding as well?
`
` A Yes.
`
` (Whereupon a Discussion is
`
` Held Off the Record.)
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Dr. Durand, you submitted two
`
` declarations in support of Apple's two
`
` petitions for inter partes review in
`
` these proceedings.
`
` Do you recall that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And these are the two initial
`
` declarations that you filed and signed on
`
` behalf of Apple in support of those two
`
` petitions.
`
` Is that fair to say?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Have you signed any errata to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 12
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` change any of your testimony in those two
`
` initial declarations?
`
` A I have not.
`
` Q Is there anything about those
`
` two initial declarations you would like
`
` to change today on the record?
`
` A No. I notice minor typos when
`
` reading, but they should not affect any
`
` understanding -- and I'm sorry, I didn't
`
` take notes where that was.
`
` Q It's okay.
`
` So it sounds like there may be
`
` some minor typos in your initial
`
` declarations. But at least, as I
`
` understand your answer, there's no change
`
` you had in mind to any of your opinions
`
` given in those two initial declarations.
`
` Is that fair to say?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q You previously gave deposition
`
` testimony in these two IPRs on
`
` January 21st of this year.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 13
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Do you recall that?
`
` A I don't recall the date exactly,
`
` but, yes, it sounds right.
`
` Q Have you signed any errata to
`
` change any of the answers in your
`
` January 2021 deposition testimony in
`
` these two IPRs?
`
` A I have not.
`
` Q Is there anything about the
`
` testimony you gave in the earlier
`
` January 2021 deposition that you would
`
` like to change today on the record?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Recently, Dr. Durand, you signed
`
` two declarations in support of Apple's
`
` reply briefs in these two IPR
`
` proceedings.
`
` Do you recall doing that?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q You signed two reply
`
` declarations in support of Apple's reply
`
` briefing on April 22, 2021.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 14
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Is that correct to say as well?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection.
`
` I want to remind Dr. Durand,
`
` when a specific document is asked
`
` about, make sure you check the
`
` document before answering any
`
` questions.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall
`
` the date exactly, but it sounds
`
` right.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q And Dr. Durand, there's a shared
`
` Box folder, the link for which has been
`
` circulated to the participants in this
`
` deposition.
`
` As I think I explained before we
`
` went on the record, copies of your
`
` initial declarations, as well as your
`
` reply declarations are in that shared Box
`
` folder.
`
` And so if you at any point need
`
` to refer to those papers, please feel
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 15
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` free to pull them up, but just let me
`
` know if you need to take some time before
`
` answering one of my questions.
`
` Is that okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q So if I refer to your more
`
` recent declarations as the reply
`
` declarations, can we proceed with that
`
` understanding; that when we say "reply
`
` declarations," we are referring to your
`
` April 2021 declarations in these two
`
` IPRs?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Sitting here today, do you have
`
` any corrections you would like to make on
`
` the record to any of the testimony you
`
` have given in your reply declarations?
`
` A No.
`
` Q So Dr. Durand, would you agree
`
` with me that there is some overlap
`
` between the testimony you have given in
`
` your reply declarations?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 16
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A (Reviewing.) Yes, there is some
`
` overlap.
`
` Q That's because the two IPRs at
`
` issue here have some overlap in the
`
` issues involved between the parties.
`
` Is that fair to say?
`
` A The two patents in question have
`
` overlap.
`
` Q Right.
`
` The two patents in question, the
`
` '233 and '942 patents, for example, share
`
` the same specification; is that correct?
`
` A (Reviewing.) Yes.
`
` Q In both of the IPR proceedings
`
` here, you are aware that there is a
`
` dispute between Apple and Corephotonics
`
` about whether there is a sufficiently
`
` demonstrated motivation to combine two of
`
` the prior art references that Apple has
`
` presented; the Golan and Martin
`
` references; is that correct?
`
` A Yes. I understand that there is
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 17
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` a dispute.
`
` Q If I refer to the Golan
`
` reference in that fashion, you will
`
` understand that that is a reference to
`
` Exhibit 1005 in both of the IPR
`
` proceedings; is that okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And similarly, when I refer to
`
` the Martin reference, that's actually
`
` just a reference to Exhibit 1006 in both
`
` of the IPR proceedings; is that okay?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q All right. So Dr. Durand, I
`
` noticed that between the two IPRs at
`
` issue today, the exhibits and the exhibit
`
` numbers are actually almost all identical
`
` between the two IPR proceedings with I
`
` think the only exceptions being your
`
` declarations that you submitted for each
`
` of the IPR proceedings.
`
` And so can we proceed with an
`
` understanding that if I reference a
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 18
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` particular exhibit number, that reference
`
` to that exhibit number refers to that
`
` exhibit in both of the IPR proceedings
`
` today as well?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Do you have an understanding
`
` that in the IPRs today there is a dispute
`
` between Apple and Corephotonics about
`
` whether the Petitioner has shown that the
`
` Golan and Martin references are analogous
`
` art to the Corephotonics patents at
`
` issue?
`
` A Yes. I understand there's a
`
` dispute.
`
` Q And you understand that there is
`
` a dispute also about whether or not there
`
` is evidence of what is called secondary
`
` considerations of non-obviousness of the
`
` '233 and '942 patents.
`
` Is that correct to say?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q And the disputes that I have
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 19
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` just mentioned and asked you about, you
`
` address those issues in your reply
`
` declarations in these proceedings; is
`
` that right?
`
` A Yes. These issues are discussed
`
` in my reply.
`
` MS. SHI: I would like to
`
` make a correction, Mr. Tsuei. You
`
` mentioned that the exhibit and
`
` exhibit numbers are almost all
`
` identical between the two IPRs
`
` with the only exception being
`
` Dr. Durand's declaration. That's
`
` not true. The '942 patent has
`
` exhibits that are not recited --
`
` cited in the '233 proceeding.
`
` MR. TSUEI: Thank you, Ms.
`
` Shi. That's an excellent point.
`
` But to the extent I think we
`
` will be talking about those
`
` additional exhibits that are filed
`
` by Apple in the '942 patent IPR, I
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 20
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` will make that clear in the
`
` questions when we get to that
`
` point for Dr. Durand.
`
` And if there's any confusion
`
` still at that point, Ms. Shi, I'd
`
` again appreciate and you have my
`
` gratitude for pointing out the
`
` confusion so that we can clarify
`
` it on the record. Is that okay?
`
` MS. SHI: Yeah, that works.
`
` Thank you.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q So Dr. Durand, just to remind
`
` you of the disputes that we just talked
`
` about, you confirmed for me that there's
`
` a dispute between the parties in these
`
` IPRs about, number one, whether there's a
`
` motivation to combine the Golan and
`
` Martin references; number two, whether or
`
` not those references are analogous to the
`
` challenged patents; and number three,
`
` whether or not there is evidence of
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 21
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` secondary considerations of
`
` non-obviousness.
`
` Are we on the same page?
`
` A Yes. I understand that these
`
` three issues are in dispute.
`
` Q Is it fair to say that your
`
` testimony about those three issues, which
`
` you have presented in your two reply
`
` declarations, is substantially the same
`
` between the two IPR proceedings; meaning,
`
` the arguments are equally applicable to
`
` one or the other IPR proceeding?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Many arguments
`
` are the same.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q For those three issues in
`
` particular -- I will represent to you
`
` that I did a compare function analysis
`
` using Adobe Acrobat, and saw that the
`
` sections that discussed those three
`
` issues were identical except for
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 22
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` references to patent numbers and to
`
` citations.
`
` Would that surprise you?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection.
`
` Misrepresentations.
`
` I would urge, Mr. Tsuei, to
`
` share the redlined done by Adobe
`
` Acrobat if you would like
`
` Dr. Durand to review that redline.
`
` MR. TSUEI: Ms. Shi, I think
`
` your objection is noted, but I
`
` don't think it well taken. I
`
` appreciate the request that you
`
` have made. I think it is a
`
` speaking objection.
`
` If Dr. Durand would not agree
`
` with the statement I have offered
`
` in the question, he's free to do
`
` so. If you want to show him a
`
` redline yourself in redirect, you
`
` are, of course, also free to do
`
` so. But until we reach that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 23
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` point, I will request that you
`
` keep your objections to the
`
` acceptable formats specified by
`
` the rules of practice.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q And so, Dr. Durand, I will
`
` repeat my question.
`
` I will represent to you that I
`
` did a compare analysis using Adobe
`
` Acrobat Pro between your two reply
`
` declarations. And for the three sections
`
` addressing the three disputes we just
`
` talked about, I will represent to you
`
` that they were identical except for
`
` references to patent numbers and
`
` citations to documents.
`
` Would that surprise you,
`
` Dr. Durand?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Calls
`
` for speculation.
`
` THE WITNESS: I haven't done
`
` the difference computation myself.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 24
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` It is possible. I would need to
`
` do it to be sure.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Well, I think my question is
`
` simpler than that, Dr. Durand.
`
` I mean, didn't you write the two
`
` declarations yourself?
`
` A I did.
`
` Q So you would know what arguments
`
` and testimony you put into those
`
` declarations.
`
` Is that fair to say?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Okay.
`
` Your reply declaration for the
`
` '942 patent IPR, which is case number
`
` IPR2020-00860, contains additional
`
` testimony not present in your declaration
`
` for the other IPR about the '233 patent;
`
` is that correct?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Calls
`
` for speculation. Vague.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 25
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` I would remind Dr. Durand
`
` that when asked about documents,
`
` you have the documents and you can
`
` take your time to review the
`
` document before answering the
`
` question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes. My reply
`
` to '942 contains content that is
`
` not in the '233.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q The content in the '942 patent
`
` IPR reply declaration contains your
`
` testimony about the appropriate claim
`
` construction for the claim term,
`
` "shifting according to a distance of an
`
` object." Is that correct?
`
` A Yes. My reply for the '942 case
`
` does include the discussion of claim
`
` construction, and in part, shifting
`
` according to a distance of an object.
`
` Q In your reply declaration in the
`
` '942 patent IPR also contains opinions
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 26
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` about whether or not the combination of
`
` the Golan and Martin references teaches
`
` the claimed "shifting according to a
`
` distance of an object."
`
` Is that also correct?
`
` A Yes, it is correct.
`
` Q And towards the end of your
`
` reply declaration for the '942 patent
`
` IPR, you include opinions about whether
`
` or not the Parulski reference would teach
`
` a person of ordinary skill to modify the
`
` base Golan and Martin combination to have
`
` a TTL over EFL ratio of less than 1.
`
` Is that also correct to say?
`
` A My reply does discuss Parulski
`
` in the context of telephoto lens designed
`
` in the TTL over EFL ratio.
`
` Q Dr. Durand, you have offered
`
` opinions as to what the correct
`
` definition of the level of ordinary skill
`
` would be in these two IPRs; is that
`
` correct?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 27
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A Yes.
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Outside
`
` the scope of the reply.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q I'm sorry. Dr. Durand, is that
`
` a yes?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q You included your opinions about
`
` the levels of ordinary skill in your
`
` initial declarations in support of
`
` Apple's petitions in these proceedings;
`
` is that correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q There's no difference in the
`
` level of ordinary skill between the '942
`
` patent and the '233 patent, at least as
`
` you have opined in support of Apple's
`
` positions in these proceedings; is that
`
` correct?
`
` A Yes.
`
` Q Do you have any changes or
`
` corrections you would like to make to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 28
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` your opinions about the level of ordinary
`
` skill in these two proceedings?
`
` A No.
`
` Q Can you tell me what lens design
`
` experience means?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: In which
`
` context?
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Let's start with the sample
`
` context.
`
` The context being the way in
`
` which you have used that term in your
`
` testimony in these two proceedings.
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: Which document
`
` are we discussing?
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Well, let me back up.
`
` Dr. Durand, do you recall using
`
` the term "lens design experience" in your
`
` declarations in these proceedings?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 29
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A I have used the term "lens
`
` design experience."
`
` Q Where have you used the term
`
` "lens design experience" in your
`
` declarations in these proceedings?
`
` A For example, I use it in my
`
` reply for '942.
`
` Q That's at paragraph 108 of your
`
` reply declaration in support of the reply
`
` brief in the '942 patent IPR; is that
`
` right?
`
` A (Reviewing.)
`
` MS. SHI: Mr. Tsuei, I may
`
` have made a mistake, but the depo
`
` exhibits -- I don't see
`
` Dr. Durand's reply dec.
`
` THE WITNESS: We are talking
`
` about 1003?
`
` MR. TSUEI: No. Well, let me
`
` first address Ms. Shi's question.
`
` THE WITNESS: Sorry. No.
`
` MR. TSUEI: Ms. Shi, you were
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 30
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` wondering whether or not the reply
`
` declarations were in the Box
`
` folder. I'm looking now, and I do
`
` not see them actually. I see the
`
` reply briefs.
`
` So give me a moment to put in
`
` the reply declarations. I
`
` apologize for the oversight. I
`
` know I promised I would put the
`
` declarations on and, for some
`
` reason, I may have put instead the
`
` briefing on instead.
`
` So Ms. Shi and Dr. Durand,
`
` you should see now the reply
`
` declarations we have been
`
` discussing in the Box folder, and
`
` it's the most recent two
`
` documents.
`
` MS. SHI: This is a reminder
`
` to Dr. Durand.
`
` When asked about specific
`
` documents, make sure you have
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 31
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` those documents, review them so
`
` that you can provide accurate
`
` answer.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes. I think I
`
` was looking at the wrong document.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q So Dr. Durand, I will re-ask my
`
` question in case it has gotten lost.
`
` The question was, the term "lens
`
` design experience" is at paragraph 108 of
`
` your reply declaration in support of the
`
` reply brief in the '942 patent IPR; is
`
` that right?
`
` A Give me one second.
`
` (Reviewing.)
`
` We are talking about the
`
` document APPL-1040-52959.54R942, right?
`
` Q That sounds correct. As long as
`
` the term "'942 patent" is in the file
`
` name, that should be the right version.
`
` A Yes. I used lens design in
`
` paragraph 108 -- lens design -- lens
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 32
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 33
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` design experience, sorry.
`
` Q So bringing you back to my
`
` original question, what does the term
`
` "lens design experience" mean?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
` THE WITNESS: It means
`
` somebody who has experience
`
` designing lenses.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q Is lens design experience part
`
` of your definition of what the level of
`
` ordinary skill would be for the '942
`
` patent?
`
` A (Reviewing.) The definition of
`
` POSITA includes somebody with experience
`
` in optics -- my definition of POSITA
`
` includes somebody who has experience in
`
` optics.
`
` Q Does the phrase "experience in
`
` optics" have any difference with the
`
` phrase "lens design experience"?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection. Vague.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2018
`Page 33
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Page 34
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: Lens design --
`
` lens design is a specialized skill
`
` in optics.
`
` BY MR. TSUEI:
`
` Q So lens design experience is a
`
` specialized skill in optics; meaning, the
`
` term "optics" refers to a broader set of,
`
` let's say, specialties for their
`
` applications and then lens design
`
` experience is a specialized part of that
`
` field; is that right?
`
` MS. SHI: Objection.
`
` Misstates testimony
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
