CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`--------------------------------x
` APPLE, INC., )
` ) IPR2020-00905
` Petitioner, ) IPR2020-00906
` )
` vs. )
` )
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`--------------------------------x
`
` C O N F I D E N T I A L
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Expert Witness
`
` FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` Tuesday, June 8, 2021 - 10:05 a.m. (EST)
`
`Reported By:
`
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`
`Job No.: 2491
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 1 of 93
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`--------------------------------x
` APPLE, INC., )
` ) IPR2020-00905
` Petitioner, ) IPR2020-00906
` )
` vs. )
` )
` COREPHOTONICS, LTD., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
`--------------------------------x
`
` C O N F I D E N T I A L
`
` Videotaped Deposition of Expert Witness
`
` FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` Tuesday, June 8, 2021 - 10:05 a.m. (EST)
`
`Reported By:
`
`Mayleen Ahmed, RMR, CRR, CRC, CSR
`
`Job No.: 2491
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 1 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 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
`
` REMOTE APPEARANCES
`
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
`
` STEPHANIE SIVINSKI, ESQ.
`
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
`
` 2323 Victory Avenue - Suite 700
`
` Dallas, Texas 75219
`
` 214.651.5078
`
` stephanie.sivinski@haynesboone.com
`
` -and-
`
` MICHAEL PARSONS, ESQ.
`
` HAYNES & BOONE LLP
`
` 6000 Headquarters Drive - Suite 200
`
` Plano, Texas 75024
`
` 972.739.8611
`
` michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
`
` NEIL A. RUBIN, ESQ.
`
` RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
` 12424 Wilshire Boulevard - 12th floor
`
` Los Angeles, California 90025
`
` 310.826.7474
`
` nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT: KIMBERLY VILLALOBOS, Videographer
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 2 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX OF EXAMINATION
`
`WITNESS: FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`
`BY MR. RUBIN .............................. 5
`
`MOTIONS TO STRIKE None
`
`INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER None
`
`DOCUMENT/INFORMATION REQUESTS None
`
` ---o0o---
`
`------------- REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ----------------
`
` EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 43
`
`Exhibit 1038 Declaration of Frédo 7
` Durand, Ph.D. (reply)
`
`Exhibit 2008 3/7/15 email chain to/from
` Townsend/Cohen re: Sample
` videos
`
`Exhibit 2015 Declaration of Duncan 11
` Moore, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 2001 Declaration of John C. 16
` Hart, Ph.D.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`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
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 3 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` DEPOSITION OF FREDO DURAND, Ph.D. - June 8, 2021
`
` ---------------
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record
`
`on June 8, 2021, at 10:05 a.m. Eastern time for the
`
`remote video deposition of Dr. Frédo Durand in the
`
`matter of Apple, Incorporated versus Corephotonics
`
`Limited.
`
` My name is Kimberly Villalobos, and I'm
`
`the videographer. All present will be noted on the
`
`stenographic record.
`
` Will the court reporter please swear in
`
`the witness.
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm going to ask that you
`
`please raise your right hand.
`
` Do you solemnly swear under penalty of
`
`perjury that you are Dr. Frédo Durand, and the
`
`testimony you are about to give in the matter now
`
`pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
`
`nothing but the truth?
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` ----------------
`
` FREDO DURAND, Ph.D.
`
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` ----------------
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 4 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. Good morning, Professor Durand.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. So this is not your first deposition
`
`in an IPR between Apple and Corephotonics; is that
`
`right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Do you know how many depositions you've
`
`had so far in the -- in those IPRs?
`
` A. I can't quite keep track because some of
`
`them are multiple IPRs for the same deposition. But
`
`I would say, is it the fifth one maybe?
`
` Q. The fifth one, you said?
`
` A. Yes. Although, as I said, I struggle to
`
`keep track of numbers.
`
` Q. Fair enough.
`
` And do you know how many times you've
`
`been deposed in total?
`
` A. One more time in another case.
`
` Q. Okay. So this would be roughly your
`
`seventh deposition; is that right?
`
` A. Possible, yes. In that range.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` So I think you're familiar with the
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 5 of 93
`
`
`
`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
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Page 6
`
`process so I won't belabor the preliminaries here.
`
` Do you have any questions about the
`
`deposition process?
`
` A. No, not at --
`
` Q. All right.
`
` A. -- this point.
`
` Q. And you understand one rule that does
`
`apply specifically to depositions before -- in cases
`
`before the PTAB is that during the portion of
`
`today's deposition where I'm the one asking you
`
`questions, so that will probably be a few hours,
`
`you're not allowed to have any communications either
`
`while we're on the record or during breaks with
`
`anyone, for Apple or anyone else, about your
`
`testimony or my questions, or questions that you
`
`anticipate I'll ask or answers you might give to
`
`such questions?
`
` Do you understand that?
`
` A. I understand.
`
` Q. Is there any reason today that you can't
`
`give full and complete testimony at the dep- -- at
`
`this deposition?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Do you have any documents or notes with
`
`you today that relate to the subject matter of this
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 6 of 93
`
`
`
`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
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`deposition that you'll -- that you're able to access
`
`Page 7
`
`during the deposition?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So I've just shared using the Zoom chat
`
`function, a document that's been filed as exhibit,
`
`Apple Exhibit 1038 in both of the IPRs we're here to
`
`discuss today. And those IPRs, for the record, are
`
`IPR 2020-00905 and IPR 2020-00906, both concerning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,255,479.
`
` So if you -- and feel free to download
`
`any of the exhibits that I share during the chat
`
`function and review a local copy.
`
` Have you had a chance to download --
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. -- Exhibit 1038?
`
` A. Yes, I had.
`
` Q. Very good.
`
` MR. RUBIN: I apologize. I'm going to
`
`need to disconnect and reconnect to Zoom in order to
`
`share my screen.
`
` I don't think we need to go off the
`
`record unless folks want to.
`
` (Pause in the proceedings.)
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. All right. Sorry for that little
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 7 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`technical hiccup.
`
` Okay. So you should see on the screen a
`
`copy of Exhibit 1038 which I've shared.
`
` Are you able to see that?
`
` A. Yes, I can see it.
`
` Q. So is it your understanding -- well,
`
`withdrawn.
`
` Is it correct that you prepared a single
`
`declaration to support the replies in both IPR
`
`2020-00905 and IPR 2020-00906?
`
` A. Yes, that's correct.
`
` Q. And so at least as far as you know, the
`
`same declaration was filed as Exhibit 1038 in both
`
`of those IPRs concerning the '479 patent; is that
`
`right?
`
` A. As far as I know, yes.
`
` Q. I take it you recognize the document
`
`that I've shared as that Declaration?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Sitting here right now, are there any
`
`errors that you're aware of in this Declaration or
`
`in any of your declarations in these IPRs?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. So there's -- sitting here right now,
`
`there's nothing that you'd like to correct in any of
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 8 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`your declarations in these IPRs; is that right?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` MR. RUBIN: And just so I don't forget,
`
`I haven't done it yet, but I'm fairly certain that
`
`we will be discussing during the deposition
`
`materials that are designated under the Protective
`
`Order.
`
` And the version of Exhibit 1038 that
`
`I've shared contains materials designated under the
`
`Protective Order. So I'd like to designate the
`
`transcript of this deposition as confidential under
`
`the Protective Order in this IPR.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: We don't have any
`
`objection to that at this point.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Thank you.
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. So turning to page 4 of your reply
`
`declaration, you list materials that you
`
`considered -- well, withdrawn.
`
` On page 4, you have a sentence that
`
`says:
`
` "In forming my opinions, I have
`
` considered the materials noted in my previous
`
` initial declaration as well as the following
`
` additional materials."
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 9 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` And then you list eight numbers or
`
`categories of documents. Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Are you aware that in the -- withdrawn.
`
` Are you aware that Corephotonics has
`
`submitted a declaration by Professor Duncan Moore
`
`addressing certain issues in the -00906 IPR?
`
` A. Can I see Dr. Hart's deposition?
`
` Q. I'm sorry. Dr. Hart's deposition? I
`
`was asking about Dr. Moore.
`
` A. Yes, I understand you're asking about
`
`Dr. Moore. I'm trying to remember if I saw it cited
`
`in Dr. Hart's deposition or not.
`
` Q. I'm sorry. In his deposition or in his
`
`declaration?
`
` A. Declaration. Sorry.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, let me start off by showing
`
`you Dr. Moore's declaration, which is maybe the way
`
`to get to the point.
`
` And if you need to see --
`
` A. As you know, it's going to take me --
`
`yeah, as you know, it's going to take me a little
`
`bit of time to download it 'cause Zoom is slow at
`
`file transferring. But it's going to happen.
`
` Q. Okay. Let me know when you've been able
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 10 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`to download it.
`
` A. Still slowly progressing.
`
` Almost there.
`
` Okay. I have it, yes.
`
` Q. Do you know if you've seen this
`
`declaration before that is, Exhibit 2015 in
`
`the -00906 IPR, the Declaration of Duncan Moore,
`
`Ph.D.?
`
` A. I don't recall reading it.
`
` Q. Okay. All right.
`
` So, you know, to an earlier question you
`
`asked, I will represent to you that Dr. Hart does
`
`cite to this declaration at least once, and --
`
`yeah, I'll represent to you that that's the case.
`
` And are you aware that Apple has also
`
`submitted a declaration in support of its reply in
`
`the -00906 IPR by Professor Sasian?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And I'm going to -- I know there are
`
`multiple experts and multiple declarations, and I'm
`
`not trying to confuse you about this.
`
` But my understanding is that,
`
`particularly for the -906 IPR, Apple submitted
`
`declarations from you and Professor
`
`Sasian addressing different aspects of the claims in
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 11 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`the prior art.
`
` My client responded with declarations
`
`from Professor Hart and Professor Moore sort of
`
`aligned with the division of labor that Apple used.
`
`And then, in the reply, Apple submitted declarations
`
`from you and from Professor Sasian.
`
` So that's my under- -- I think that's a
`
`fair summary of what the various -- the respective
`
`declarations are in the -906 IPR.
`
` And you don't have an understanding
`
`that's inconsistent with what I've just said, do
`
`you?
`
` A. I do not.
`
` Q. And so it would be fair to say that you
`
`don't offer any opinions in these IPRs that are
`
`meant to rebut or disagree with opinions that have
`
`been offered by Dr. Moore?
`
` A. I rely -- I rely on Dr. Sasian for
`
`the -- for the lens design issues.
`
` Q. Right. And you're not offering any
`
`independent opinion on lens design issues in these
`
`IPRs; is that right?
`
` A. I rely on Dr. Sasian for the lens design
`
`issues.
`
` Q. And in particular, is it correct that
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 12 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`you're not offering any opinion on whether or how a
`
`person skilled in the art might have scaled the
`
`lenses that are disclosed in the Kawamura or Ogata
`
`prior art references to use in the combination that
`
`Apple is proposing in the -906 IPR?
`
` A. For this issue, I relied on the -- on
`
`Sasian's expertise since he's more knowledgeable
`
`than I am about this topic.
`
` And his opinion in that matter matches
`
`in my understanding of lens design and scaling of
`
`lenses.
`
` Q. So you just referred to your
`
`understanding of lens design and scaling of lenses.
`
` You haven't offered any opinions in your
`
`declarations in these cases -- in these IPRs about
`
`your understanding of lens design or scaling of
`
`lenses; is that right?
`
` A. No. My opinion relies -- in my
`
`declaration, my opinion relies on Dr. Sasian for the
`
`lens design and scaling. Yes.
`
` Q. And I take it you're not claiming to be
`
`an expert in lens design or in scaling of lenses; is
`
`that right?
`
` A. Certainly not in the way Dr. Sasian is
`
`an expert.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 13 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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. Okay.
`
` In Section IV of your reply
`
`declaration -- and I'll probably use the term "reply
`
`declaration" to refer to Exhibit 1038.
`
` So in Section IV of that reply
`
`declaration, you address the issue of secondary
`
`considerations? You can see that in your Table of
`
`Contents here.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Prior to your work on these IPRs, had
`
`you heard of the concept of secondary considerations
`
`as it relates to patent law?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Your original declarations in these IPRs
`
`had a section on legal standards. I don't know if
`
`you recall that.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And the -- you did not address the issue
`
`of secondary considerations in your original
`
`declarations; that is, in your declarations that
`
`were submitted with the petition; is that right?
`
` A. That's right.
`
` Q. So those original declarations, in their
`
`legal standards section, didn't explain what the
`
`legal standards are for secondary considerations;
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 14 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`would you agree?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So what is your understanding of what
`
`secondary considerations are?
`
` A. I -- in my reply, on relied on the same
`
`standards as Dr. Hart did in his declaration.
`
` Q. And what's the -- what is the relevance
`
`of secondary considerations to determining whether
`
`the claim of a patent is obvious?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for a
`
`legal conclusion.
`
` A. Can I see Dr. Hart's declaration?
`
` Q. Which one would you like?
`
` A. Well, I think that part is the same.
`
` Q. And it may be that I'm asking you a
`
`trick question because I don't recall whether
`
`they're the same declaration. Let me check.
`
` A. I remember seeing only one document.
`
` Q. Yeah. It was a bad question because,
`
`indeed, I believe there is only one.
`
` A. I'm always confused if you count two
`
`documents filed separately for the two IPRs; but...
`
` Q. Well, let's just say that they have the
`
`same content.
`
` A. Yeah.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 15 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` Q. Same text. All right. I just shared
`
`Exhibit 2001 using the chat function. You can
`
`download that. And I also -- I'm showing the first
`
`page of it on the screen.
`
` A. It's a little smaller; so...
`
` Q. What is that?
`
` A. I was just saying, it's smaller than the
`
`previous file, so hopefully that won't take as long.
`
` Q. It has more pages but fewer images.
`
` And just for the record, Exhibit 2001
`
`that I'm referring to is titled "Declaration of
`
`John C. Hart, Ph.D., pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`Section 1.68," and it was filed as Exhibit 2001 in
`
`IPR 2020-00905 and IPR 2020-00906.
`
` Have you had a chance to download the
`
`document?
`
` A. No, I haven't.
`
` And was there a question? Sorry.
`
` Q. So I think the pending question would
`
`be: What is the relevance of secondary
`
`considerations to determining whether a claim of a
`
`patent is obvious?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for a
`
`legal conclusion.
`
` A. So my understanding is that I should
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 16 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`consider objective evidence that may have existed at
`
`the time of the invention covered by an issued
`
`claim, and which may shed light on obviousness of
`
`the claim. And it's also my understanding that such
`
`secondary considerations must have a nexus to the
`
`claimed invention.
`
` Q. What does it mean for them to have a
`
`"nexus to the claimed invention"?
`
` A. To be coextensive.
`
` Q. Be coextensive with what?
`
` A. With the claims.
`
` Q. So when you say that the secondary
`
`considerations must be coextensive with the claims,
`
`is it your understanding that in order to qualify or
`
`to be considered for the purpose of secondary
`
`considerations, a document needs to recite every
`
`limitation of the claim?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls --
`
` Q. Is that what it means to be
`
`"coextensive"?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for a
`
`legal conclusion.
`
` A. My understanding is that it should be
`
`clear that the material discusses the technology
`
`described by the claims.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 17 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` Q. Does that mean that the material has to
`
`discuss technology using every element of the claim?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for a
`
`legal conclusion.
`
` A. My opinion is that the declaration of
`
`Dr. Hart fails to discuss, or let alone prove, that
`
`usage of terms such as "fusion algorithms" is
`
`actually a reference to one of the claimed
`
`techniques or some -- or whether it's some other
`
`algorithm.
`
` Q. So you used the word "coextensive" a few
`
`moments ago, and that's not a word that appears in
`
`Dr. Hart's declaration. So I'm wondering where you
`
`got that word from.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Vague.
`
` A. I do not recall when I first learned the
`
`term "coextensive." But, generally speaking, for
`
`legal concepts, I have relied on -- legal concepts
`
`and terms, I have relied on the advice of my
`
`counsel.
`
` Q. I mean, it's fair that you would rely
`
`on -- on others such as Apple's counsel for an
`
`understanding of legal terms. We're not all experts
`
`on everything. I wouldn't expect you to be
`
`intimately familiar with patent law doctrine.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 18 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` But I -- I think I'm entitled to know,
`
`or at the very least to ask you about, what
`
`assumptions or understandings you were told to use
`
`in conducting your analysis.
`
` And so were you instructed by counsel
`
`for Apple that -- for there to be nexus for the
`
`purposes of secondary considerations, that the
`
`disclosure relied upon for secondary considerations
`
`has to be coextensive with one of the claims in the
`
`patent?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for
`
`attorney-client privileged information.
`
` Dr. Durand, you can answer with respect
`
`to your understanding about secondary considerations
`
`that you relied upon in rendering your opinions, but
`
`I would ask -- or instruct you not to disclose the
`
`substance of any communications you had with Apple's
`
`counsel.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Well, Counsel, I understand
`
`your concern here. But, with respect, I think
`
`that's kind of a confusing and incoherent
`
`instruction.
`
` I think that the record reflects that,
`
`in rendering his opinions, the witness relied on
`
`a -- an understanding of legal principles that was
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 19 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`provided by counsel for Apple.
`
` I'm not asking for a verbatim recitation
`
`of discussions that -- that he had in preparing the
`
`Declaration. I doubt he could provide that, anyway.
`
` But I think that the substance of those
`
`communications with counsel, to the extent that
`
`those communications conveyed the legal
`
`understandings that he, in fact, used in rendering
`
`his opinion, is properly -- you know, is outside the
`
`protections of Rule 26.
`
` So in any event --
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: I don't think we
`
`disagree, Neil. I think he can testify about what
`
`he understands and what he used to render his
`
`opinions. I just would instruct him not to recite
`
`verbatim any conversations he had with Apple's
`
`attorneys.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Okay.
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. So with that clarification, let me
`
`re-ask the question.
`
` Were you instructed by counsel for Apple
`
`that for there to be nexus for the purpose of
`
`secondary considerations, that the disclosures that
`
`are relied upon for secondary consideration have to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 20 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`be coextensive with one of the claims of the patent?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Same objection.
`
` Again, Dr. Durand, you can testify about
`
`your understanding and what understanding you used
`
`in rendering his opinions. But I would instruct you
`
`not to discuss the specifics of any conversations
`
`you've had with Apple's counsel.
`
` A. (No response.)
`
` Q. Do you understand the question?
`
` A. Yes, I do.
`
` (Witness reviewing document.)
`
` Q. So I think it's a "yes" or "no"
`
`question, and I'm not -- yeah, I don't know. Do you
`
`know the answer to the question?
`
` A. I mean, in all honesty, there is --
`
`there is nothing I saw in Dr. Hart's declaration
`
`that identified any unique characteristic of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
` And so I don't look just for what
`
`their -- recitation of claim limitations, but
`
`anything that would suggest that we are talking
`
`about unique aspects of the technology described in
`
`the patents.
`
` Q. Turning to paragraph 52 of your reply
`
`declaration. You say that "Dr. Hart includes ten
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 21 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`documents with his declaration."
`
` I take it that that's referring to ten
`
`documents on the topic of secondary considerations.
`
` And then you proceed to discuss at least
`
`some of those documents. For example, in
`
`paragraph 53, you discuss Exhibit 2011; in
`
`paragraph 54, you discuss Exhibit 2012.
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So did you review each of the ten
`
`documents that you discuss in, I guess,
`
`paragraphs 53 through around 66?
`
` Let me withdraw the question and ask it
`
`differently.
`
` Did you review each of the ten documents
`
`that you refer to in paragraph 52 here?
`
` A. Yes, I did.
`
` Q. And many, if not all, of these ten
`
`documents are emails or letters between
`
`Corephotonics and Apple. Would you agree?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. In preparing your Declaration, did you
`
`discuss any of these communications that occurred
`
`between Apple and Corephotonics, or any other
`
`communications that occurred between Apple and
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 22 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`Corephotonics with anyone at Apple?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls --
`
` A. No.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: -- for legal --
`
` Or, I'm sorry, calls for attorney-client
`
`privilege.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Is there an instruction?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Well, his answer is no,
`
`so it sort of moots the objection.
`
` But --
`
` MR. RUBIN: Oh, I'm sorry.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: -- the objection was with
`
`respect to -- if he had talked to any in-house
`
`counsel. But his answer is no, so I think we can
`
`move on.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Okay. All right. So I
`
`didn't catch the answer.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Okay.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Fair enough. So the answer
`
`was no.
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. Counsel representing Apple in this IPR
`
`are at the law firm of Haynes & Boone; is that your
`
`understanding? Let me withdraw it.
`
` Counsel representing Apple in these
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 23 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`IPRs, the two IPRs concerning the '479 patent, are
`
`at the law firm of Haynes & Boone; is that your
`
`understanding?
`
` A. Yes, that's my understanding.
`
` I've also worked with lawyers from
`
`Cooley. That's why I hesitate.
`
` Q. And without, at least for the purposes
`
`of this question, wanting to know anything about
`
`what communications you had with lawyers from
`
`Cooley, did you have discussions with lawyers from
`
`Cooley in preparing your reply declaration?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for a
`
`legal conclusion.
`
` Same instruction that we've been talking
`
`about, Dr. Durand. Please do not disclose the
`
`substance of any communications you've had with any
`
`of Apple's lawyers.
`
` A. Truthfully, I haven't kept track of who
`
`I talked to about which IPR, so I... so I don't
`
`recall.
`
` Q. In preparing for this IPR or other IPRs
`
`between Apple and Corephotonics, have you had
`
`discussions with an attorney at Cooley named Priya
`
`Viswanath? If I'm pronouncing her name correctly.
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Same objection.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 24 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` I think you can disclose the answer if
`
`you know, but please don't disclose the substance of
`
`any communications, if any, you've had with
`
`Ms. Viswanath.
`
` A. In general, I have worked with Ms. Priya
`
`on some of these IPRs.
`
` Q. Did you learn anything from discussions
`
`with Ms. Viswanath about communications that
`
`occurred between Corephotonics and Apple that in any
`
`way affected the opinions that you've rendered in
`
`these IPRs?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for
`
`privileged information, attorney-client privileged
`
`information.
`
` MR. RUBIN: Let me -- yeah, let me --
`
`let me withdraw and ask it again.
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
` Q. Did you learn anything from your
`
`discussions with Ms. Viswanath that you --
`
`withdrawn.
`
` Did you learn anything in your
`
`discussions with Ms. Viswanath about communications
`
`between Corephotonics and Apple that you in any way
`
`relied upon in reaching opinions concerning
`
`secondary considerations in these IPRs?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 - Depo@TransPerfect.com
`
`Corephotonics Exhibit 2041
`Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00878
`Page 25 of 93
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Objection. Calls for
`
`attorney-client privilege.
`
` Dr. Durand, to the extent there are any
`
`specific facts that you learned from Ms. Viswanath
`
`that you relied upon in your Declaration, I think
`
`you could answer the question. But anything beyond
`
`specific facts, including the substance of any
`
`communications, I would instruct you not to disclose
`
`those.
`
` MR. RUBIN: And when you say -- Counsel,
`
`when you say "substance of any communications,"
`
`you're referring to substance of communications with
`
`counsel, not to substance of communications between
`
`Apple and Corephotonics?
`
` MS. SIVINSKI: Correct. Any -- well,
`
`correct, yes. The substance of any communications
`
`with Apple's counsel.
`
` THE WITNESS: I really don't think so.
`
`It's a vague question so I'm not -- but if I
`
`understand the question correctly, I -- no, I don't
`
`think so. Yeah.
`
` Because I don't think I have any
`
`knowledge of communication between Apple and
`
`Corephotonics beyond what's in the record.
`
`BY MR. RUBIN:
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8
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
