1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2
`
`_________________________
`
`
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
` ____________________________
`
` Case IPR2020-00487
` U.S. Patent 9,661,233
`
` Case IPR2020-00860
`U.S. Patent 10,326,942
`
` _____________________________
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18 VIDEO-RECORDED DEPOSITION OF FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` January 21, 2021
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24 Theresa JoAnn Phillips-Blackwell, CSR 12700.
` 470028
`
`25
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 1
`
`
`
` 2
`
`_________________________
`
`
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
` ____________________________
`
` Case IPR2020-00487
` U.S. Patent 9,661,233
`
` Case IPR2020-00860
`U.S. Patent 10,326,942
`
` _____________________________
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18 VIDEO-RECORDED DEPOSITION OF FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` January 21, 2021
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24 Theresa JoAnn Phillips-Blackwell, CSR 12700.
` 470028
`
`25
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 1
`
`
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` 2 _________________________
`
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` 4 _________________________
`
` 5 APPLE, INC.,
` Petitioner
` 6
`
` 7 vs.
`
` 8 COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
` Patent Owner.
` 9
`
`10 ____________________________
`
`11 Case IPR2020-00487
` U.S. Patent 9,661,233
`12
` Case IPR2020-00860
`13 U.S. Patent 10,326,942
`
`14
`
`15 _____________________________
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18 VIDEO-RECORDED DEPOSITION OF FREDO DURAND,
`
`19 Ph.D., taken remotely via Zoom at 9:00 a.m.,
`
`20 Thursday, January 21, 2021, before Theresa
`
`21 JoAnn Phillips-Blackwell, CSR 12700.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 2
`
`
`
` 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
` 2
`
` 3 For Petitioner:
`
` 4 HONG SHI, ESQ.
` DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQ.
` 5 (Both Appearing via Zoom)
` HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
` 6 600 Congress Avenue
` Suite 1300
` 7 Austin, Texas 78701
` hong.shi.ipr@haynesboone.com
` 8 david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
` 9 -and-
`
`10 PRIYA B. VISWANATH, ESQ.
` (Appearing via Zoom)
`11 COOLEY LLP
` 3175 Hanover Street
`12 Palo Alto, California 94304
` (650) 849-7023
`13 pviswanath@cooley.com
`
`14
` For Patent Owner:
`15
` NEIL A. RUBIN, ESQ.
`16 (Appearing via Zoom)
` RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`17 12424 Wilshire Boulevard
` Twelfth Floor
`18 Los Angeles, California 90025
` (310) 826-7474
`19
`
`20
`
`21 Also Present: John Hank, videographer
` (Appearing via Zoom)
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`3
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 3
`
`
`
` 1 I N D E X
`
` 2
`
` 3 DEPONENT EXAMINED BY PAGE
`
` 4 Fredo Durand, Ph.D. Mr. Rubin 7
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9 EXHIBITS
`
`10
`
`11 DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`12 2002 - SlideDeck Entitled "Photography 101" 52
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`4
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 4
`
`
`
` 1 (Remotely via Zoom; Thursday, January 21, 2021,
`
` 2 9:00 a.m.)
`
`07:33 3
`
`09:00 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We're now on
`
`09:00 5 the record. My name is John Hank. I'm a certified
`
`09:00 6 legal video specialist here today for Barkley Court
`
`09:00 7 Reporters. Today is January 21st, 2021. The time is
`
`09:00 8 9:00 a.m. We are located today remotely via
`
`09:00 9 videoconferencing technology.
`
`09:00 10 This deposition of Dr. Fredo Durand is being
`
`09:01 11 taken today on behalf of the patent owner in the case
`
`09:01 12 captioned Apple, Inc., versus Corephotonics LTD., United
`
`09:01 13 States Patent and Trademark Office, Before the Patent
`
`09:01 14 Trial and Appeals Board, Case No. 1 -- excuse me --
`
`09:01 15 IPR2020-00489 [sic], U.S. Patent No. 10,015,408 [sic].
`
`09:01 16 Will counsel for the parties please identify
`
`09:01 17 yourselves with the city and state where you are
`
`09:01 18 appearing from.
`
`09:01 19 MR. RUBIN: I guess I can go first. This is
`
`09:01 20 Neil Rubin representing the patent owner, Corephotonics,
`
`09:01 21 with the firm of Russ, August & Kabat, and located in
`
`09:01 22 Santa Monica, California.
`
`09:01 23 MS. SHI: I would like to make a correction to
`
`09:01 24 the case number. I think the case numbers are
`
`09:02 25 incorrect. This is for two IPRs ending with 487 and
`
`5
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 5
`
`
`
`09:02 1 860.
`
`09:02 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay.
`
`09:02 3 MR. O'BRIEN: This is David O'Brien with the
`
`09:02 4 law firm of Haynes And Boone representing Apple, Inc.,
`
`09:02 5 from Austin, Texas. On the case identifications, let's
`
`09:02 6 just type out the IPR numbers in the chat window so that
`
`09:02 7 we get those two correct.
`
`09:02 8 MS. SHI: Okay. Is there a -- shall we --
`
`09:02 9 MS. VISWANATH: Sorry. Go ahead.
`
`09:02 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`
`09:02 11 please swear in the witness remotely.
`
`09:02 12 DEPOSITION OFFICER: Raise your right hand,
`
`09:02 13 please.
`
`09:02 14 MS. VISWANATH: Let me just -- Madam Court
`
`09:02 15 Reporter, let me state my appearance as well. Priya
`
`09:03 16 Viswanath from Cooley LLP, also on behalf of Apple.
`
`09:03 17 MS. SHI: And Hong Shi from Haynes And Boone
`
`09:03 18 representing Petitioner Apple and the witness.
`
`09:03 19 DEPOSITION OFFICER: Raise your right hand,
`
`09:03 20 please.
`
`09:03 21 You do solemnly state that the evidence you
`
`09:03 22 shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole
`
`09:03 23 truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
`
`09:03 24 THE WITNESS: I do.
`
`09:03 25 ///
`
`6
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 6
`
`
`
`09:03 1 EXAMINATION
`
`09:03 2
`
`09:03 3 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:03 4 Q. Hello, Dr. Durand.
`
`09:03 5 A. Hi.
`
`09:03 6 Q. So I think we've all said for the record where
`
`09:03 7 we're located. Where are you at right now?
`
`09:03 8 A. I am located in Somerville, Massachusetts.
`
`09:03 9 Q. Can you tell me, have you been deposed before?
`
`09:03 10 A. I have.
`
`09:03 11 Q. How many times?
`
`09:03 12 A. Just once.
`
`09:03 13 Q. And what sort of matter was that deposition
`
`09:04 14 for?
`
`09:04 15 A. It was a patent litigation.
`
`09:04 16 Q. So is that a patent litigation in U.S. District
`
`09:04 17 Court or somewhere else?
`
`09:04 18 A. Yes. As far as I understand, it was district
`
`09:04 19 court.
`
`09:04 20 Q. And when was that deposition?
`
`09:04 21 A. It was a long time ago. I think maybe 2014.
`
`09:04 22 I'm not exactly sure.
`
`09:04 23 Q. Okay. And who were the parties in that case?
`
`09:04 24 A. EveryScape and Adobe.
`
`09:04 25 Q. Did you say EverScape?
`
`7
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 7
`
`
`
`09:04 1 A. EveryScape.
`
`09:04 2 Q. EveryScape. Okay.
`
`09:04 3 And which -- which party were you an expert
`
`09:05 4 witness for?
`
`09:05 5 A. So I was not an expert witness. I was one of
`
`09:05 6 the inventors on the EveryScape side.
`
`09:05 7 Q. I see. So your work for Apple and the IPRs
`
`09:05 8 against Corephotonics -- is that the first time that
`
`09:05 9 you've worked as an expert witness?
`
`09:05 10 A. Yes. This is correct.
`
`09:05 11 Q. Were -- withdrawn.
`
`09:05 12 So you've been deposed once before as an
`
`09:05 13 inventor of a patent; correct?
`
`09:05 14 A. Correct.
`
`09:05 15 Q. So since it's been a while, I can go over some
`
`09:05 16 of the ground rules with you just to make sure we're on
`
`09:05 17 the same page.
`
`09:05 18 So the court reporter, as you know, is
`
`09:05 19 recording everything that you or I and anyone else on
`
`09:06 20 this Zoom session is saying; so it's important for -- in
`
`09:06 21 order for her to maintain an accurate record, that we
`
`09:06 22 not talk over each other. So I'd ask that you please
`
`09:06 23 let me finish my question before you answer, and I'll
`
`09:06 24 certainly try to not speak over your answers.
`
`09:06 25 Is that fair?
`
`8
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 8
`
`
`
`09:06 1 A. Yes.
`
`09:06 2 Q. If at any time you don't understand one of my
`
`09:06 3 questions, please let me know; and I'll clarify. Okay?
`
`09:06 4 A. Okay.
`
`09:06 5 Q. So if -- if you answer one of my questions, we
`
`09:06 6 can -- we can assume that you feel that you understood
`
`09:06 7 the question that you're answering; is that fair?
`
`09:06 8 A. Okay. Yes.
`
`09:06 9 Q. I will plan to take breaks every hour to hour
`
`09:06 10 and a half. During today's deposition, if at any point
`
`09:07 11 you need to take a break, please feel free to let us
`
`09:07 12 know. I will ask that you answer any question that's
`
`09:07 13 pending before we start the break. Okay?
`
`09:07 14 A. Yes.
`
`09:07 15 Q. Now, have you had lunch or --
`
`09:07 16 A. I've had some food.
`
`09:07 17 Q. Okay. So will you need to take a break at any
`
`09:07 18 point to -- to eat or --
`
`09:07 19 A. No. Just small breaks will be fine.
`
`09:07 20 Q. Okay. Very good. So you understand that
`
`09:07 21 during any breaks that we do have during the course of
`
`09:07 22 my questioning, you're not permitted to discuss the
`
`09:07 23 substance of your testimony or my questions or questions
`
`09:08 24 that you expect that I may ask with counsel for Apple?
`
`09:08 25 A. I understand.
`
`9
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 9
`
`
`
`09:08 1 Q. Okay. Are you -- is there any reason that you
`
`09:08 2 cannot give full and accurate testimony here today?
`
`09:08 3 A. Not to my knowledge.
`
`09:08 4 Q. So you're not suffering from any illness or
`
`09:08 5 taking any medication that would affect your memory or
`
`09:08 6 your ability to understand and answer questions?
`
`09:08 7 A. No.
`
`09:08 8 Q. Very good. Also, at times during today's
`
`09:08 9 deposition counsel for Apple may object to a question
`
`09:08 10 that I've asked. You understand that you're still
`
`09:08 11 required to answer the question even if there is an
`
`09:08 12 objection unless counsel specifically instructs you not
`
`09:09 13 to? Okay?
`
`09:09 14 A. I -- I understand.
`
`09:09 15 Q. And -- withdrawn.
`
`09:09 16 Do you have any questions about the -- the
`
`09:09 17 process or today's deposition?
`
`09:09 18 A. No. Not at this point.
`
`09:09 19 Q. I -- I'm assuming that the last -- the prior
`
`09:09 20 deposition that you did was in person, and you were
`
`09:09 21 probably handle -- handed paper exhibits to look at.
`
`09:09 22 Today, sadly, we can't be in person.
`
`09:09 23 Are you familiar with Zoom software and the use
`
`09:09 24 of its chat function?
`
`09:09 25 A. I am all too familiar with Zoom, yeah. Uh-huh.
`
`10
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 10
`
`
`
`09:09 1 Q. Yeah. We all are.
`
`09:09 2 And so I'm going to be introducing exhibits by
`
`09:10 3 sharing the PDFs of the exhibits in the chat window of
`
`09:10 4 Zoom and then also sharing the window on my screen to
`
`09:10 5 direct you to particular aspects of exhibits. So I take
`
`09:10 6 it you'll be -- you're comfortable using Zoom in order
`
`09:10 7 to download files and -- and view things on the screen?
`
`09:10 8 A. There should be no problem. Although with Zoom
`
`09:10 9 you never know, so...
`
`09:10 10 Q. Fair enough. Do you have any documents with
`
`09:10 11 you today?
`
`09:10 12 A. No.
`
`09:10 13 Q. None at all. Okay.
`
`09:10 14 So I -- I think there -- there was some
`
`09:10 15 confusion at the beginning of the record about what
`
`09:10 16 today's deposition concerns, so I want to clear that up.
`
`09:11 17 First of all, can you tell me, how many IPR
`
`09:11 18 petitions have you submitted declarations in support of?
`
`09:11 19 Do you know?
`
`09:11 20 A. So I'm losing track. We're talking about two
`
`09:11 21 today. And then we have one -- I have one next week, so
`
`09:11 22 greater than two. Maybe four. Sorry. I'm losing
`
`09:11 23 track.
`
`09:11 24 Q. Okay. But you do understand that today we're
`
`09:11 25 talking about two, in particular?
`
`11
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 11
`
`
`
`09:11 1 A. Yes.
`
`09:11 2 Q. And -- well, let me introduce the IPR
`
`09:11 3 petition -- I'm sorry -- the -- your declarations. And
`
`09:12 4 we can just make sure we're talking about the same IPRs.
`
`09:12 5 MS. SHI: So, Opposing Counsel, it would be
`
`09:12 6 appreciated when you ask the questions, to identify the
`
`09:12 7 patent that you're focusing on so that it is clear which
`
`09:12 8 patent your question is directed at since we have two
`
`09:12 9 patents at issue here today.
`
`09:12 10 MR. RUBIN: So I'll certainly try to make it
`
`09:12 11 very clear what document I'm asking about, if I'm asking
`
`09:12 12 about a document. I will say, there is considerable
`
`09:12 13 overlap in the -- in the actual text of the declarations
`
`09:12 14 across the two IPRs. So I -- I wouldn't -- I think that
`
`09:12 15 many of the questions today may fairly apply to both
`
`09:13 16 IPRs; but certainly, if there's any confusion as to what
`
`09:13 17 I'm asking, please, either the witness or counsel, speak
`
`09:13 18 up.
`
`09:13 19 MS. SHI: Thank you.
`
`09:13 20 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:13 21 Q. All right. So the first document that I shared
`
`09:13 22 in the chat function, which I will also share on the
`
`09:13 23 screen momentarily, is Exhibit 1003 in the IPR
`
`09:13 24 concerning the '233 patent, which is IPR2020-00487. And
`
`09:14 25 this exhibit is titled "Declaration of Fredo Durand,
`
`12
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 12
`
`
`
`09:14 1 Ph.D., Under 37 C.F.R. Section 1.68 in Support of
`
`09:14 2 Petition for Inter Partes Review."
`
`09:14 3 So you see that exhibit on the screen?
`
`09:14 4 A. Yes.
`
`09:14 5 Q. And you understand that this is one of the
`
`09:14 6 declarations that we're going to be discussing in
`
`09:14 7 today's deposition?
`
`09:14 8 A. Yes.
`
`09:14 9 Q. And then on the screen now is another document,
`
`09:14 10 also Exhibit 1003; but this is from the IPR concerning
`
`09:14 11 the '942 patent, which is -- bear with me just a
`
`09:15 12 second -- which is IPR2020-00860.
`
`09:15 13 You're familiar with this declaration on the
`
`09:15 14 screen?
`
`09:15 15 A. Yes.
`
`09:15 16 Q. And you're also prepared to discuss this
`
`09:15 17 declaration in this deposition; correct?
`
`09:15 18 A. Yes.
`
`09:15 19 MS. SHI: This is a reminder for Dr. Durand.
`
`09:15 20 You can take a pause and download the exhibits from the
`
`09:15 21 chat window --
`
`09:15 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
`
`09:15 23 MS. SHI: -- so you actually have the -- thank
`
`09:15 24 you -- so you can have the document with you.
`
`09:16 25 ///
`
`13
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 13
`
`
`
`09:16 1 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:16 2 Q. So can you tell me, when did you first start
`
`09:16 3 working on these IPRs -- not necessarily the two
`
`09:16 4 specific IPRs we're talking about today but the set of
`
`09:16 5 IPRs that Apple has filed against Corephotonics patents?
`
`09:16 6 A. I don't remember exactly. More than a year
`
`09:16 7 ago. Yeah. So I -- I don't remember when we started.
`
`09:16 8 Q. Okay.
`
`09:16 9 A. I don't know. I would guess two years, but...
`
`09:16 10 Q. Okay. So the declaration from the '233 IPR is
`
`09:16 11 dated February 26th of 2020. Do you have any idea how
`
`09:17 12 long it was before that that you began working on these
`
`09:17 13 IPRs?
`
`09:17 14 A. To be fully honest, not really.
`
`09:17 15 Q. Up to the time that the declarations in these
`
`09:17 16 IPRs were submitted, how many hours would you estimate
`
`09:17 17 you worked on these cases?
`
`09:17 18 A. I really don't know. Let me -- let me -- I can
`
`09:17 19 speculate, but -- well, just especially -- I mean, if
`
`09:17 20 you ask me to disentangle between those various
`
`09:17 21 declarations, it's been worse. But I don't even have a
`
`09:18 22 bulk number; so, I mean, it's clearly tens of hours.
`
`09:18 23 But I don't -- I don't recall.
`
`09:18 24 Q. So tens of hours. I take it that that means
`
`09:18 25 more than ten, less than a hundred?
`
`14
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 14
`
`
`
`09:18 1 A. If I had to make a guess, yes.
`
`09:18 2 Q. Did you identify yourself any of the prior art
`
`09:18 3 that is discussed in your declarations, or were those
`
`09:18 4 provided -- were those references provided by counsel?
`
`09:18 5 A. It was a teams effort. I did identify a number
`
`09:18 6 of the references.
`
`09:18 7 Q. Do you recall which references you identified?
`
`09:18 8 A. Not -- not particularly, no.
`
`09:19 9 Q. So you can't recall any specific references
`
`09:19 10 that you identified?
`
`09:19 11 MS. SHI: Objection. Privilege.
`
`09:19 12 I'm going to caution the witness not to reveal
`
`09:19 13 any work product privileged information.
`
`09:19 14 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure -- so my -- in any
`
`09:19 15 case, I -- I don't recall.
`
`09:19 16 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:19 17 Q. Looking at the table of contents for the '233
`
`09:19 18 IPR petition -- declaration, you offer the opinion that
`
`09:20 19 certain claims of the '233 patent are unpatentable
`
`09:20 20 because they're obvious over the combination of Golan
`
`09:20 21 with Martin; is that right?
`
`09:20 22 A. Yes.
`
`09:20 23 Q. So you don't believe that any of the claims of
`
`09:20 24 the '233 patent are entirely disclosed in Golan;
`
`09:20 25 correct?
`
`15
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 15
`
`
`
`09:20 1 MS. SHI: Objection. Form. Calls for legal
`
`09:20 2 conclusion.
`
`09:20 3 THE WITNESS: So there the question we studied
`
`09:20 4 is whether Golan combined, for example, with Martin for
`
`09:21 5 some of the claims makes some of the -- the claims of
`
`09:21 6 '233 obvious.
`
`09:21 7 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:21 8 Q. So your opinions all rely on the combination of
`
`09:21 9 Golan with Martin and for some claims with additional
`
`09:21 10 references in order to allegedly satisfy the -- the
`
`09:21 11 claims of the '233 patent; correct?
`
`09:21 12 A. Yes. My declaration studies combination of --
`
`09:21 13 of multiple patents, yes.
`
`09:21 14 Q. And so you haven't offered the -- any opinion
`
`09:21 15 that Golan by itself discloses the limitations of
`
`09:21 16 Claim 1, for example, of the '233 patent?
`
`09:21 17 A. That is correct.
`
`09:21 18 Q. And you haven't offered anything in that Martin
`
`09:22 19 by itself discloses the limitations of Claim 1 of the
`
`09:22 20 '233 patent; correct?
`
`09:22 21 A. That is correct.
`
`09:22 22 Q. So it's -- it's a -- under the analysis in your
`
`09:22 23 declaration, you need to combine aspects of Golan with
`
`09:22 24 aspects of Martin in order to satisfy claims of the '233
`
`09:22 25 patent; correct?
`
`16
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 16
`
`
`
`09:22 1 MS. SHI: Objection. Form. Asked and
`
`09:22 2 answered.
`
`09:22 3 THE WITNESS: My declaration says that, for
`
`09:22 4 example -- yeah, that the combination of Golan and
`
`09:22 5 Martin is sufficient to cover, for example, Claim 1. I
`
`09:22 6 did not study whether the combination is needed.
`
`09:22 7 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:22 8 Q. I see. So you don't have an opinion one way or
`
`09:22 9 the other whether the combination of Golan and Martin is
`
`09:23 10 needed to satisfy claims of the '233 patent as opposed
`
`09:23 11 to using just one or just the other?
`
`09:23 12 A. That's right. My declaration does not study
`
`09:23 13 this question.
`
`09:23 14 Q. And the same is true for the '942 patent? That
`
`09:23 15 you haven't studied whether Golan by itself or whether
`
`09:23 16 Martin by itself would satisfy the claims --
`
`09:23 17 A. I --
`
`09:23 18 DEPOSITION OFFICER: I'm sorry?
`
`09:23 19 THE WITNESS: I should -- yeah. I believe
`
`09:23 20 that's correct. That's why we need to triple-check all
`
`09:23 21 the claims. But yes. Yes, I believe that's correct.
`
`09:24 22 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:24 23 Q. So I'd like to talk right now about your
`
`09:24 24 opinions related to claim construction. And so I'm
`
`09:24 25 looking now at the '233 declaration of the section on
`
`17
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 17
`
`
`
`09:24 1 claim construction beginning on Page 17.
`
`09:24 2 Do you see that?
`
`09:24 3 A. Yes. I'm trying to get the -- go there on my
`
`09:24 4 own computer document that I just downloaded.
`
`09:24 5 Yes.
`
`09:24 6 Q. And then you also have a section on claim
`
`09:24 7 construction in your declaration for the '942 patent?
`
`09:24 8 A. Yes.
`
`09:24 9 Q. Which also begins on Page 17 of that
`
`09:25 10 declaration, doesn't it?
`
`09:25 11 A. Yes.
`
`09:25 12 Q. And so in both of these declarations you
`
`09:25 13 address the construction of the phrase "reduce an image
`
`09:25 14 effect seen in video output images"; correct?
`
`09:25 15 A. Yes.
`
`09:25 16 Q. And that's the only claim term that you address
`
`09:25 17 claim construction for in these IPRs; correct?
`
`09:25 18 A. I believe that's true. Double-check for the
`
`09:25 19 '942. Yes.
`
`09:25 20 Q. Now, do you know whether there are any
`
`09:25 21 differences between the specifications of the '233
`
`09:25 22 patent and the '942 patent?
`
`09:26 23 A. Well, there are clearly differences between
`
`09:26 24 '233 and '942, which -- yeah.
`
`09:26 25 Q. I'm sorry. When you said "there are clearly
`
`18
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 18
`
`
`
`09:26 1 differences," what -- what --
`
`09:26 2 A. So which -- which part of either of the patents
`
`09:26 3 or the -- or the declaration are you referring to?
`
`09:26 4 Q. Yeah. So I was asking about the specifications
`
`09:26 5 of the two patents.
`
`09:26 6 A. Yeah. So you're talking about --
`
`09:26 7 Q. I understand they have different claims, but
`
`09:26 8 the --
`
`09:26 9 A. Yeah.
`
`09:26 10 Q. -- the specification is in the figures.
`
`09:26 11 A. Yes. Sorry. I haven't compared the two
`
`09:27 12 patents in a long time, so that's why it's taking my
`
`09:27 13 brain a little while to -- information -- yeah. Sorry.
`
`09:27 14 I don't remember all the figures and the exact
`
`09:27 15 specifications. If you have a more narrow question, I'm
`
`09:27 16 happy to answer more precisely.
`
`09:27 17 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the -- well -- well,
`
`09:27 18 are you aware that the '942 patent is a continuation of
`
`09:28 19 the -- I'm sorry -- that the application that led to the
`
`09:28 20 '942 patent was a continuation of the application that
`
`09:28 21 led to the '233 patent?
`
`09:28 22 A. Now that you mention it -- sorry. I didn't --
`
`09:28 23 I didn't review the -- the patent history for this
`
`09:28 24 meeting. So again, I'm a little -- my brain is a little
`
`09:28 25 fuzzy about this question. But if -- yes. If you state
`
`19
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 19
`
`
`
`09:28 1 this, I believe so.
`
`09:28 2 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any reason that the --
`
`09:28 3 that this claim term "reduce an effect seen in video
`
`09:28 4 output images" should have a different construction in
`
`09:29 5 the '942 patent than it has in the '233 patent?
`
`09:29 6 A. Let me check what I say in my declarations. I
`
`09:30 7 believe also I would need to double-check the -- the
`
`09:30 8 patent itself that '233 may include more examples of
`
`09:30 9 sources of this continuity. But since I don't have the
`
`09:31 10 full '942 in front of me, I can't double-check this.
`
`09:31 11 Q. Well, I should probably introduce the patents
`
`09:31 12 as exhibits. Bear with me, please.
`
`09:31 13 It looks like we're picking up some feedback
`
`09:31 14 somewhere. It went away.
`
`09:31 15 All right. So I've uploaded in the chat
`
`09:32 16 function and will share on the screen now Exhibit 1001
`
`09:32 17 from the '233 patent IPR, which is U.S. Patent
`
`09:32 18 No. 9,661,233. Do you see that?
`
`09:32 19 A. Yes. They're moving them at the same time.
`
`09:32 20 Q. And I've also introduced Exhibit 1001 from the
`
`09:32 21 '942 patent IPR, which is U.S. Patent No. 10,326,942.
`
`09:32 22 So if you -- if there is something on either of those
`
`09:32 23 patents that you wanted to look at to answer the -- the
`
`09:32 24 question of whether there's any reason for the -- the
`
`09:32 25 term to have different construction in the two patents,
`
`20
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 20
`
`
`
`09:33 1 you can take a look at them.
`
`09:34 2 So is there something in particular that you're
`
`09:34 3 looking for?
`
`09:34 4 A. Sorry. Yeah. I'm -- I'm -- sorry. I'm a
`
`09:34 5 little slow to warm up. I was looking for that -- that
`
`09:35 6 quote about whether -- dual-aperture camera switches in
`
`09:35 7 those patents. Okay. Slowly getting there. Yes. It
`
`09:36 8 looks like this -- it looks like this -- certainly, this
`
`09:36 9 paragraph pointed to dual-aperture cameras, et cetera,
`
`09:36 10 et cetera. Seems to be the same in the two patents.
`
`09:36 11 Q. Okay. Maybe if I can ask you to turn to your
`
`09:36 12 declarations and the sections in each declaration
`
`09:36 13 discussing the claim construction for this term. Would
`
`09:37 14 you agree that in each declaration you point to the same
`
`09:37 15 evidence from each patent, in particular, the portions
`
`09:37 16 of each patent that you're quoting have the same text?
`
`09:37 17 A. Yes.
`
`09:37 18 Q. And you offer the opinion that -- or the -- the
`
`09:37 19 claim construction that you opine on is the same for
`
`09:37 20 each of the two patents. Would you agree?
`
`09:37 21 A. Yes, I would agree.
`
`09:37 22 Q. So I'd like to draw your attention to the
`
`09:37 23 sentence that appears in both of the petition -- or both
`
`09:38 24 of the declarations, but we can look at the sentence
`
`09:38 25 from the -- from Paragraph 42 of the '233 IPR
`
`21
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 21
`
`
`
`09:38 1 declaration.
`
`09:38 2 You say, "In other words, a continuous image
`
`09:38 3 change during the transition between cameras or POVs
`
`09:38 4 does not include a 'jump.'"
`
`09:38 5 So what's -- what do you understand to be a
`
`09:38 6 jump?
`
`09:38 7 A. A discontinuity allow --
`
`09:38 8 Q. Okay.
`
`09:38 9 A. -- excessively large change.
`
`09:38 10 Q. So I'm sorry. You said a jump is a
`
`09:38 11 discontinuity?
`
`09:39 12 A. In the -- in this context I would -- I would
`
`09:39 13 qualify jump as a discontinuous image change or, in
`
`09:39 14 layman's term, excessively large change to the image.
`
`09:39 15 Q. And when you say an excessively large change in
`
`09:39 16 the image, what is it that makes a change excessive --
`
`09:39 17 or excessively large?
`
`09:39 18 A. It could be many reasons. One -- one possible
`
`09:39 19 reason is that the brightness of the two images is very
`
`09:39 20 different. Another possible reason is that the position
`
`09:39 21 of objects is very different.
`
`09:39 22 Q. And how -- how do you determine whether a
`
`09:39 23 particular change is excessive?
`
`09:40 24 A. I -- I don't think one means a particular
`
`09:40 25 threshold for excessive change in order to seek to
`
`22
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 22
`
`
`
`09:40 1 reduce the change. So I would not offer a particular
`
`09:40 2 precise question -- at which point, you know, the
`
`09:40 3 change, you know, was acceptable before and all of a
`
`09:40 4 sudden becomes unacceptable, if that answers your
`
`09:40 5 question.
`
`09:40 6 Q. Well -- so if I'm trying to apply this claim
`
`09:41 7 language, reduce a jump -- an image jump effect, and to
`
`09:41 8 decide whether a particular device meets that -- that
`
`09:41 9 claim language, under your definition I need to
`
`09:41 10 determine whether the change is excessively large; is
`
`09:41 11 that right?
`
`09:41 12 MS. SHI: Objection. Form.
`
`09:41 13 THE WITNESS: No. So my -- what -- what I'm
`
`09:41 14 saying is that a device, you know, would take a change
`
`09:41 15 magnitude before and at least in some cases make the
`
`09:41 16 change magnitude while using the device as opposed to
`
`09:41 17 not using the invention a smaller, hence the term
`
`09:42 18 "reduction."
`
`09:42 19 BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`09:42 20 Q. Now -- so if I understand the answer that you
`
`09:42 21 just gave, you're focused on reducing the magnitude of
`
`09:42 22 the change; but then in the highlighted sentence you
`
`09:42 23 say, quote, A continuous image change during a
`
`09:42 24 transition between cameras or POVs does not include a
`
`09:42 25 jump, which seems to say that there is no jump at all.
`
`23
`
`FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE V COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2014
`Page 23
`
`
`
`09:42 1 MS. SHI: Objection. Form. Misstates
`
`09:42 2 testimony.
`
`09:43 3 THE WITNESS: Let me try to rephrase this. So
`
`09:43 4 my -- yes. My position is that a continuous image
`
`09:43 5 change does not include a jump, but most of the -- most
`
`09:43 6 of what we're talking about in these patents is about
`
`09:43 7 reducing jumps or reducing discontinuities. I believe
`
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
