·1· · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·-· ·-· ·-
`
`·4· · · · · · SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · vs.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · NETLIST, INC.,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`·9· · · · · · _______________________________
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2022-00996
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·Patent 11,016,918
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2022-00999
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·Patent 11,232,054
`
`14
`
`15· · · Deposition of WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Monday, June 12, 2023
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20· ·Job No.:· J9759315
`
`21· ·Pages 1 - 245
`
`22· ·Reported by:· Gail L. Verbano
`
`23· ·BA, RDR CRR, CSR-CA No. 8635
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 1
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·2· · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·-· ·-· ·-
`
`·4· · · · · · SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · Petitioner
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · vs.
`
`·7· · · · · · · · · · NETLIST, INC.,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`·9· · · · · · _______________________________
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2022-00996
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ·Patent 11,016,918
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2022-00999
`
`13· · · · · · · · · ·Patent 11,232,054
`
`14
`
`15· · · Deposition of WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D.
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·Monday, June 12, 2023
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20· ·Job No.:· J9759315
`
`21· ·Pages 1 - 245
`
`22· ·Reported by:· Gail L. Verbano
`
`23· ·BA, RDR CRR, CSR-CA No. 8635
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 1
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1
`
`·2
`
`·3
`
`·4
`
`·5
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8· · · · · · ·Whereupon, the remote video-recorded
`
`·9· ·deposition of WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D., was
`
`10· ·held via videoconference on Monday, June 12,
`
`11· ·2023, beginning at approximately 9:06 a.m.,
`
`12· ·Pacific Time, the proceedings being recorded
`
`13· ·stenographically by Gail Verbano, Registered
`
`14· ·Diplomate Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`
`15· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter, and transcribed
`
`16· ·under her direction.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 2
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`·2· ·On behalf of Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:
`
`·3· · · · ·THEODORE W. CHANDLER, ESQ.
`
`·4· · · · ·ted.chandler@bakerbotts.com
`
`·5· · · · · · · ·BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`·6· · · · · · · ·101 California Street, Suite 3200
`
`·7· · · · · · · ·San Francisco, California 94111
`
`·8· · · · · · · ·415.291.6200
`
`·9
`
`10· ·On behalf of Patent Owner:
`
`11· · · · ·JONATHAN LINDSAY, ESQ.
`
`12· · · · ·jlindsay@irell.com
`
`13· · · · ·HONG ANNITA ZHONG, ESQ.
`
`14· · · · ·HZHONG@irell.com
`
`15· · · · · · · ·IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`
`16· · · · · · · ·1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`
`17· · · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`
`18· · · · · · · ·310.277.1010
`
`19
`
`20· ·ALSO PRESENT:
`
`21· · · · ·DANA BACHMAN, Legal Technician
`
`22· · · · ·FERENC PAZMANDI, Baker Botts
`
`23· · · · ·LEON WANG (SUMMER ASSOCIATE)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 3
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · -· ·-· ·-
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·I N D E X
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · -· ·-· ·-
`
`·4
`
`·5· ·DEPONENT:· · · · EXAMINATION· · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`·6· ·WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D.
`
`·7· · · · · · · ·By Attorney Chandler· · · · · · ·8
`
`·8· · · · · · · ·By Attorney Lindsay· · · · · · 213
`
`·9· · · · · · · ·By Attorney Chandler· . . . . .226
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
`
`12· ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE
`
`13· ·Exhibit 1076· Red-line comparison of the .....17
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·declarations of
`
`15· · · · · · · · ·Dr. Mangione-Smith (165 pages)
`
`16
`
`17· ·Exhibit 1077· Netlist PowerPoint .............81
`
`18· · · · · · · · ·presentation, Technology
`
`19· · · · · · · · ·Tutorial" in re: 337-TA-1023,
`
`20· · · · · · · · ·5-8-17 (CDX-200.1 to .14)
`
`21
`
`22· ·Exhibit 1078· Data sheet for ADP1821 ........138
`
`23· · · · · · · · ·Step-Down DC-to-DC controller
`
`24· · · · · · · · ·(24 pages)
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 4
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERENCED:
`
`·2· ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 1001· ·.........8
`
`·4· ·Exhibit 1003· ·........45
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 1023· ·........23
`
`·6· ·Exhibit 1024· ·........24
`
`·7· ·Exhibit 1025· ·........25
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 1026· ·........26
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 1027· ·........27
`
`10· ·Exhibit 1028· ·........28
`
`11· ·Exhibit 1038· ·........30
`
`12· ·Exhibit 1042· ·.......228
`
`13· ·Exhibit 1045· ·........69
`
`14· ·Exhibit 1046· ·........69
`
`15· ·Exhibit 1048· ·.......127
`
`16· ·Exhibit 1058· ·.......107
`
`17· ·Exhibit 1062· ·.......129
`
`18· ·Exhibit 2012· ·.......192
`
`19· ·Exhibit 2013· ·........69
`
`20· ·Exhibit 2016· ·........46
`
`21· ·Exhibit 2029· ·........48
`
`22· ·Exhibit 2031· ·........18
`
`23· ·Exhibit 2032· ·.......141
`
`24· ·Exhibit 2035· ·.......165
`
`25· ·Exhibit 2038· ·.......180
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 5
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS REFERENCED:
`
`·2· ·NUMBER· · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·3· ·Exhibit 2044· ·........96
`
`·4· ·Exhibit 2045· ·.......102
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 2046· ·........69
`
`·6· ·Exhibit 2061· ·........18
`
`·7· ·Exhibit 2101· ·.......170
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·QUESTIONS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
`
`10· ·PAGE· LINE
`
`11· ·(None)
`
`12
`
`13· ·REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`
`14· ·PAGE· LINE
`
`15· ·(None)
`
`16
`
`17· ·QUESTIONS MARKED
`
`18· ·PAGE· LINE
`
`19· ·(None)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22· · · · · · · · · ·REPORTER'S NOTE:
`
`23· ·QUOTATION MARKS ARE USED FOR CLARITY AND DO NOT NECESSARILY
`
`24· ·REFLECT A DIRECT QUOTE.
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 6
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
`
`·2· · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·--oOo--
`
`·4· · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· We're
`
`·5· ·now on the record at 9:06 a.m. Pacific Time on
`
`·6· ·June 12th, 2023.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·This begins the videoconference
`
`·8· ·deposition of Dr. William Mangione-Smith --
`
`·9· ·excuse me -- taken in the matter of Samsung
`
`10· ·Electronics Company, Limited, versus Netlist,
`
`11· ·Incorporated, filed in the Patent and Trial
`
`12· ·Appeal Board, United States Patent and Trademark
`
`13· ·Office, Case Number IPR2022-00996, and Case
`
`14· ·Number IPR2022-00999.
`
`15· · · · · · ·My name is Dana Bachman.· I'm your
`
`16· ·videographer today.· Our court reporter is Gail
`
`17· ·Verbano.· We're both representing Esquire
`
`18· ·Deposition Solutions.
`
`19· · · · · · ·Will everyone present please identify
`
`20· ·themselves, beginning with the noticing attorney.
`
`21· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY CHANDLER:· Good morning.· This
`
`22· ·is Ted Chandler from Baker Botts on behalf of the
`
`23· ·Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Limited; and
`
`24· ·with me are my colleagues, Dr. Ferenc Pazmandi
`
`25· ·and Dr. Leon Wong.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 7
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · ATTORNEY LINDSAY:· And this is Jonathan
`
`·2· · Lindsay with Irell & Manella for Patent Owner
`
`·3· · Netlist, Inc., defending Dr. Mangione-Smith; and
`
`·4· · with me is my colleague, Dr. Annita Zhong.
`
`·5· · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Thank you very much.
`
`·6· · · · · · · Madam Reporter, would you please swear
`
`·7· · in our witness.
`
`·8
`
`·9· ·Whereupon,
`
`10· · · · · · ·WILLIAM MANGIONE-SMITH, PH.D.,
`
`11· ·being first duly sworn or affirmed to testify to the
`
`12· ·truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
`
`13· ·was examined and testified as follows:
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`
`16· · BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`17· · · · ·Q.· ·Good morning.· Please state your name
`
`18· · for the record.
`
`19· · · · ·A.· ·William Henry Mangione-Smith.
`
`20· · · · ·Q.· ·Dr. Mangione-Smith, were you retained
`
`21· · by Netlist to provide opinions in these two cases
`
`22· · related to Netlist's '918 and '054 patents?
`
`23· · · · ·A.· ·Yes, I was.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 8
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1001 was previously
`
`·2· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`·3· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And the '918 patent has been marked as
`
`·5· ·Exhibit 1001 in IPR2022-00996 and is U.S. Patent
`
`·6· ·Number 11,016,918; correct?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And the '054 patent is marked as
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 1001 in IPR· · -· · ·, and is number
`
`10· ·11,232,054; correct?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·And where are you physically located
`
`13· ·right now?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·My home office in Kirkland, Washington.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·Given that this is a remote deposition,
`
`16· ·meaning we're not in the same physical room
`
`17· ·together, there are a few questions I need to
`
`18· ·ask, starting with:· Is there anyone else in the
`
`19· ·room with you right now?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And given that I cannot see the room
`
`22· ·that you're in, will you please let me know if
`
`23· ·someone enters the room that you're in at any
`
`24· ·time before this deposition ends?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Yes, I will.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 9
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Did you bring anything with you to your
`
`·2· ·deposition today?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·No, I did not.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you have any, for example, printed
`
`·5· ·copies of any of the exhibits or declarations
`
`·6· ·from these two cases in front of you?
`
`·7· · · · A.· ·No, I do not.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And are you looking at anything on your
`
`·9· ·screen besides the video feed and the PDF
`
`10· ·exhibits that I've been sending to you through
`
`11· ·the chat?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·Just a folder with the PDFs, getting
`
`13· ·ready to open them.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·And to be clear, do you have any PDFs
`
`15· ·of the exhibits that you're looking at that have
`
`16· ·any notes on them that haven't been shared with
`
`17· ·me?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·No, I do not.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·We will take breaks throughout your
`
`20· ·deposition today, but I wanted to remind you that
`
`21· ·during those breaks, under the rules governing
`
`22· ·these two cases, you should not consult with your
`
`23· ·counsel about the substance of your testimony
`
`24· ·during the breaks while I'm taking your
`
`25· ·testimony.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 10
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·Understood?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's understood.
`
`·3· · · · Q.· ·And during the deposition, I would ask
`
`·4· ·that you do not look things up on the internet or
`
`·5· ·do other things on the computer or on your phone
`
`·6· ·that we cannot see on camera.
`
`·7· · · · · · ·Understood?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry.· Could you repeat that
`
`·9· ·question.
`
`10· · · · Q.· ·I would ask, during the deposition,
`
`11· ·that you do not look things up on the internet or
`
`12· ·do things on the computer or on your phone that
`
`13· ·we cannot see on the camera.
`
`14· · · · · · ·Do you understand?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Assuming you mean while on the record,
`
`16· ·yes, I understand that.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Correct.
`
`18· · · · · · ·And you understand that during your
`
`19· ·deposition you should not be emailing or texting
`
`20· ·other people?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Do you have any questions for me about
`
`23· ·the procedure for today's deposition?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·No, I do not.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·And you understand that this is two
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 11
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·depositions for two cases being taken at the same
`
`·2· ·time, and so it's possible that we may extend
`
`·3· ·into a second day, starting tomorrow at
`
`·4· ·9:00 a.m.?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's my understanding.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·What did Netlist ask you to do in these
`
`·7· ·two IPRs?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·They asked me to review the
`
`·9· ·documentation that had been produced prior to my
`
`10· ·review, and to consider -- to determine what I
`
`11· ·thought of the arguments that were made regarding
`
`12· ·invalidity.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Did anyone help you with your work in
`
`14· ·these two matters?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·"Help" is a very broad term.
`
`16· ·Certainly, for example, people sent me PDFs and
`
`17· ·sent me the documents.· It's likely that -- it's
`
`18· ·possible, I wouldn't even say "likely," that
`
`19· ·somebody said, "Hey, you may want to focus on
`
`20· ·this section as a priority."· I don't remember
`
`21· ·that happening, but for the most part, I'd say
`
`22· ·no, nobody really helped me with my work on this.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·And when you say that people sent you
`
`24· ·PDFs or people may have asked you to focus, are
`
`25· ·you referring to the attorneys at the Irell &
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 12
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·Manella firm, or are there other people you're
`
`·2· ·referring to?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Those were the only people I would have
`
`·4· ·been referring to -- that I was referring to,
`
`·5· ·yes.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Is there anyone besides the attorneys
`
`·7· ·at the Irell & Manella firm that you interacted
`
`·8· ·with for purposes of forming your opinions in
`
`·9· ·this matter?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·It's possible.· I have interacted with
`
`11· ·Dr. Thomas Barr.· I don't recall that
`
`12· ·specifically being with regards to my efforts on
`
`13· ·the IPR, though.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·And who is Dr. Thomas Barr?· I'm not
`
`15· ·familiar with him.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·He's a -- he's a Ph.D. at Irell, and my
`
`17· ·understanding is he's not an attorney.· But as I
`
`18· ·said, I don't remember anything specific with
`
`19· ·regards to the IPR efforts where I interacted
`
`20· ·with him.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And outside of people at Irell, was
`
`22· ·there anyone else that you interacted with for
`
`23· ·purposes of forming your opinions in these two
`
`24· ·IPRs?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Not that I recall as I sit here today.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 13
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·And what did you do to prepare for
`
`·2· ·today's deposition and tomorrow's deposition?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Well, I reviewed my declaration, and
`
`·4· ·the materials -- some of the materials that I
`
`·5· ·was -- I'm sorry.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·I reviewed my declarations, the two,
`
`·7· ·and the materials that they cited.· And there
`
`·8· ·were, I think, three different phone calls with
`
`·9· ·counsel at Irell to discuss issues that may come
`
`10· ·up today and tomorrow.
`
`11· · · · Q.· ·And who attended those phone calls?
`
`12· · · · A.· ·That would be Jonathan Lindsay and
`
`13· ·Dr. Annita Zhong.
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Anyone else?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·Nope.· Well, and myself, clearly, yeah.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·And approximately how long were those
`
`17· ·three phone calls?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Probably seven or eight hours in total.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·And in the last few weeks, about how
`
`20· ·many hours in total did you prepare on your own
`
`21· ·for the deposition today and tomorrow in these
`
`22· ·two IPRs?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·It's hard to say.· Probably -- I would
`
`24· ·estimate another 10 to 14 hours.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·So in total, approximately 20 hours of
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 14
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·preparation for the deposition today and
`
`·2· ·tomorrow; is that fair?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·Over the last two weeks, yes.· Yeah.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Approximately how many hours in total
`
`·5· ·have you spent working on these two IPRs?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·I don't have an estimate with regards
`
`·7· ·to that.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·I've worked on, as I'm sure you're
`
`·9· ·aware, a couple of other matters for Netlist.· So
`
`10· ·I don't have any -- I have no estimate in my head
`
`11· ·that I feel comfortable making as I sit here.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·In the past year and a half,
`
`13· ·approximately how many hours in total have you
`
`14· ·worked on all of the matters for Netlist?
`
`15· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY LINDSAY:· Objection; form.
`
`16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I can't reasonably make
`
`17· ·any reliable estimate as I sit here on this. I
`
`18· ·would have to review my billing statements.
`
`19· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Be fair to say at least a couple of
`
`21· ·hundred hours over the past year and a half
`
`22· ·you've worked for -- on the matters for Netlist?
`
`23· ·Is that fair?
`
`24· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY LINDSAY:· Objection; form.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I wouldn't say that.· As
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 15
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·I sit here, I'm not comfortable providing any
`
`·2· ·estimate.
`
`·3· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·How much are you charging Netlist per
`
`·5· ·hour for your time spent on these two IPRs?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·My current rate that I ask new clients
`
`·7· ·for is 750.· I don't recall if Netlist -- and I
`
`·8· ·don't increase that over time, even for matters
`
`·9· ·that take multiple years.· So I don't recall
`
`10· ·exactly when Netlist and I -- when Netlist
`
`11· ·engaged me through Irell, but it's probably
`
`12· ·between 650 and $750 an hour.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·And over the past year and a half,
`
`14· ·would it be fair to say that you have billed
`
`15· ·Netlist in excess of $100,000 for the time spent
`
`16· ·working on Netlist matters?
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Possibly.· As I suggested though, I'm
`
`18· ·not really comfortable making any estimate off
`
`19· ·the top of my head.· There is a number that I
`
`20· ·have billed them for that can be determined
`
`21· ·precisely.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·By you; correct?
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Sure.· By me, presumably by Irell or
`
`24· ·Netlist.
`
`25· · · · Q.· ·Approximately how many times have you
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 16
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·been deposed before?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Oh, too many times.· Too many times
`
`·3· ·this year.· Probably more than 20 different
`
`·4· ·matters.· Certainly more than 20 days.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·And have you testified at trial before?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·How many times?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·I've testified mostly at trial at the
`
`·9· ·ITC.· I've also testified in front of a jury at
`
`10· ·least three times.· I thought it was four, but
`
`11· ·recently I went back to look and it might only be
`
`12· ·three.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·I want to talk about your declarations
`
`14· ·and your CV.· And actually I want to introduce a
`
`15· ·new exhibit, which is a red-line comparison of
`
`16· ·your two declarations.· So really just a way for
`
`17· ·any of us to see the differences more quickly.
`
`18· ·So I'll mark that as Exhibit 1076 in both IPRs.
`
`19· · · · · · ·(Whereupon, Exhibit Number 1076 was
`
`20· · · · · · ·marked for identification in both
`
`21· · · · · · ·IPR cases and are attached hereto.)
`
`22· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY CHANDLER:· And I'll send the
`
`23· ·same document twice, one for the first IPR and
`
`24· ·one for the second IPR.· That is the same
`
`25· ·document, just with a different stamp on the
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 17
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·bottom right.· Let me know when you have
`
`·2· ·Exhibit 1076.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·And to be more precise, Exhibit 1076 is
`
`·4· ·a computer-generated red-line comparing your
`
`·5· ·declaration in IPR2022-00999, marked as
`
`·6· ·Exhibit 2061 to your declaration; and
`
`·7· ·IPR2022-00996 marked as Exhibit 2031.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Numbers 2031 and 2061 were
`
`·9· · · · · · ·previously marked for
`
`10· · · · · · ·identification.)
`
`11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· All right.· I have the
`
`12· ·'054 downloaded and the '918 is downloading now.
`
`13· ·And which one would you like me to open first?
`
`14· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·They're the same, so either one.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·Okay.· It's just the file sizes are
`
`17· ·different.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·I think the stamp -- it should be a
`
`19· ·function of the stamping.
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Okay, I have it opened.
`
`21· · · · Q.· ·And just as a general matter, is it
`
`22· ·fair to say that there's similarities between
`
`23· ·your two declarations and the two IPRs, as shown
`
`24· ·in the red-line, as marked as Exhibit 1076?
`
`25· · · · A.· ·Sure.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 18
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Look at your CV at the end of your
`
`·2· ·declaration, so either Exhibit 2031 in
`
`·3· ·IPR2022-00996 or Exhibit 2061 in IPR2022-00999.
`
`·4· ·At the end of both of those declarations is what
`
`·5· ·I believe is your CV; correct?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Does the CV at the end of your expert
`
`·8· ·declaration in the two IPRs list all of your
`
`·9· ·prior expert engagements in which you were either
`
`10· ·deposed or testified at trial?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·It is intended to include that
`
`12· ·information, yes.
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·When did you start your work for
`
`14· ·Netlist in these two IPRs?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I don't know for sure.· Likely sometime
`
`16· ·mid last year.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·So approximately a year ago?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·That's -- yes, that's an estimate.
`
`19· ·It's probably -- yeah.
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·And do you have your two expert
`
`21· ·declarations on the screen in front of you?
`
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Are your expert declarations marked as
`
`24· ·Exhibit 2031, for the '918 patent, and
`
`25· ·Exhibit 2061, for the '054 patent, complete?
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 19
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·Meaning, do they provide a complete statement of
`
`·2· ·all the opinions that you intend to express in
`
`·3· ·each IPR along with the basis and the reasons for
`
`·4· ·those opinions?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I don't understand the question of what
`
`·6· ·I intend to express or state.· So it's what I've
`
`·7· ·intended to state in these declarations.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And you've reviewed the declarations.
`
`·9· ·And my question is:· In your perspective, are the
`
`10· ·two complete?· Meaning do they provide a complete
`
`11· ·statement of all of the opinions that you intend
`
`12· ·to express in each IPR along with the basis and
`
`13· ·the reasons for those opinions?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·Again, it sounds like either you're
`
`15· ·asking me if they're complete with regards to
`
`16· ·what I intended to state within them; and the
`
`17· ·answer would be sure, yeah, they are.
`
`18· · · · · · ·But if you're asking me about opinions
`
`19· ·that I intend to state regarding -- in the
`
`20· ·context of the IPR in the future, I don't have
`
`21· ·any particular expectations of stating any more
`
`22· ·opinions.
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Are your expert declarations, marked as
`
`24· ·Exhibit 2031, in IPR2022-00996, and Exhibit 2061,
`
`25· ·in IPR 202022-0999, accurate?· Meaning, they do
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 20
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·not have any mistakes?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·Well, there likely are mistakes. I
`
`·3· ·don't know of any -- there almost certainly are
`
`·4· ·mistakes.· There always seem to be.
`
`·5· · · · · · ·I don't know of any material -- any
`
`·6· ·mistakes that are really material to
`
`·7· ·understanding my opinions, with one exception.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·There was a place -- my recollection
`
`·9· ·is, there was one place where I had stated an
`
`10· ·opinion fairly clearly three or four times, and
`
`11· ·then in one sentence I said, "It's clear that
`
`12· ·this is not supported."· And the "not" was in
`
`13· ·error.
`
`14· · · · · · ·But I think that -- I don't recall
`
`15· ·exactly where that was.· And reviewing the
`
`16· ·context, I believe that my intention was clear.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·And could you generally describe the
`
`18· ·opinion that you stated three or four times, to
`
`19· ·help us more easily identify the error where
`
`20· ·later you said "not supported" when, in fact, you
`
`21· ·intended to say that something was supported?· So
`
`22· ·for example, what generally do you recall the
`
`23· ·discussion concerned?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·Yeah, I can try to -- that's something
`
`25· ·that I could try to review during a break.· But
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 21
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·as I sit here, no, I don't recall -- I wouldn't
`
`·2· ·even point you more closely, Oh, it's generally
`
`·3· ·related to this piece of prior art.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·But as I said, I don't believe that the
`
`·5· ·error would have confused somebody reviewing it
`
`·6· ·with regards to what my opinions are.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Are there any other errors that you
`
`·8· ·recall in your two declarations that you came
`
`·9· ·across during the time you spent in the last
`
`10· ·couple of weeks preparing for today's deposition?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·No.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read Netlists '918
`
`13· ·patent, marked as Exhibit 1001 in IPR2022-00996?
`
`14· · · · A.· ·What was the exhibit number, please?
`
`15· ·Again, sorry.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·1001 in IPR2022-00996.
`
`17· · · · A.· ·Sure.· Yes, I have.
`
`18· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe you understand Netlist's
`
`19· ·'918 patent?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`21· ·it, yes.
`
`22· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe you understand the
`
`23· ·figures in Netlist's '918 patent?
`
`24· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`25· ·the figures, yes.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 22
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·And you believe you understand the
`
`·2· ·claims at the end of '918 patent?
`
`·3· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`·4· ·the claims, yes.
`
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read Netlist's '054
`
`·6· ·patent, marked as Exhibit 1001 in the second IPR,
`
`·7· ·number IPR2022-00999?
`
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe you understand the '054
`
`10· ·patent?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have an understanding of it.· Is
`
`12· ·that -- I'm sorry.· Never mind.· I found it.
`
`13· · · · · · ·Okay.· Yes, I have an understanding of
`
`14· ·it.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·And it's fair to say the '918 and the
`
`16· ·'054 patent, they have the same specifications
`
`17· ·and figures; correct?
`
`18· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's my understanding.· Yeah.
`
`19· · · · Q.· ·And you believe that you understand the
`
`20· ·claims at the end of the '054 patent?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·Yes, I believe I have an understanding
`
`22· ·of the claims at the end of the '054 patent.
`
`23· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1023 was previously
`
`24· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`25
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 23
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Could you please turn to Exhibit 1023,
`
`·3· ·which is the same in both IPRs, and let me know
`
`·4· ·when you're there.
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.· This is the Harris application,
`
`·6· ·and I have it opened in front of me.
`
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the Harris
`
`·8· ·prior art reference marked, as Exhibit 1023 in
`
`·9· ·both IPRs?
`
`10· · · · A.· ·I have read the Harris patent
`
`11· ·application with a focus on the elements that
`
`12· ·were relied upon in making arguments in the
`
`13· ·context of the IPR.· But Harris is fairly short,
`
`14· ·so I don't know that there's nothing of anything
`
`15· ·beyond that that's disclosed in it.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe you understand the
`
`17· ·Harris prior art reference marked as Exhibit 1023
`
`18· ·in both IPRs?
`
`19· · · · A.· ·I have an understanding of it, yeah.
`
`20· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1024 was previously
`
`21· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`22· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`23· · · · Q.· ·Please turn to Exhibit 1024, which is
`
`24· ·the same in both IPRs, and let me know when you
`
`25· ·have that in front of you.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 24
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, this is the '604 Amidi reference.
`
`·2· ·I have it in front of me now.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·Sorry, Amidi.
`
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Amida, A-M-I-D-I; correct?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, sir.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the Amidi prior
`
`·7· ·art reference, marked as Exhibit 1024 in both
`
`·8· ·IPRs?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have with a particular focus on
`
`10· ·the elements that were cited and relied upon by
`
`11· ·others to make arguments in this IPR.
`
`12· · · · Q.· ·And do you believe that you understand
`
`13· ·the Amidi prior art reference, marked as
`
`14· ·Exhibit 1024 in both IPRs?
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`16· ·it, yes.
`
`17· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1025 was previously
`
`18· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`19· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`20· · · · Q.· ·Please pull up Exhibit 1025, which is
`
`21· ·the same in both IPRs, and let me know when
`
`22· ·you're there.
`
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes, sir, I'm there.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the Spiers
`
`25· ·prior art reference, marked as Exhibit 1025 in
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 25
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·both IPRs?
`
`·2· · · · A.· ·I have reviewed Spiers with a
`
`·3· ·particular emphasis on the arguments made by
`
`·4· ·Dr. Wolfe and any others regarding its relevance
`
`·5· ·in this IPR.
`
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And do you believe you understand the
`
`·7· ·Spiers prior art reference, marked as
`
`·8· ·Exhibit 1025 in both IPRs?
`
`·9· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`10· ·it, yes.
`
`11· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1026 was previously
`
`12· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`13· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`14· · · · Q.· ·Please turn to Exhibit 1026.· Let me
`
`15· ·know when you're there.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·I am there.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the JEDEC
`
`18· ·JESD79-2B DDR2 SDRAM specification dated
`
`19· ·January 2005, marked as Exhibit 1026 in both
`
`20· ·IPRs?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I have reviewed this document
`
`22· ·specifically in the regards to -- in regards to
`
`23· ·the way in which it was relied upon by Dr. Wolfe
`
`24· ·and potentially others in the context of this
`
`25· ·IPR.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 26
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·And do you believe that you understand
`
`·2· ·the JEDEC JESD79-2BDD DDR2 SDRAM specification
`
`·3· ·dated January 2005, marked as Exhibit 1026 in
`
`·4· ·both IPRs?
`
`·5· · · · A.· ·I have an understanding of it.· There
`
`·6· ·are many elements of this document, in
`
`·7· ·particular, that, in my opinion, are not relevant
`
`·8· ·to the IPR arguments; but I have an understanding
`
`·9· ·of it, yes.
`
`10· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1027 was previously
`
`11· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`12· ·BY ATTORNEY CHANDLER:
`
`13· · · · Q.· ·Please turn to Exhibit 1027, which is
`
`14· ·the same in both IPRs.· Let me know when you're
`
`15· ·there.
`
`16· · · · A.· ·I have it opened in front of me.
`
`17· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the JEDEC
`
`18· ·JESD82-20 FBDIMM, advanced memory buffer standard
`
`19· ·dated March 2007, marked as Exhibit 1027 in both
`
`20· ·IPRs?
`
`21· · · · A.· ·I have carefully read and reviewed the
`
`22· ·elements of this document that were cited and
`
`23· ·relied upon by Dr. Wolfe and others in the
`
`24· ·context of this IPR.
`
`25· · · · · · ·I'm sorry.· I gave you the impression I
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 27
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·had stopped speaking.
`
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Do you believe that you understand the
`
`·3· ·JEDEC JESD82-20 FBDIMM advanced memory buffer
`
`·4· ·standard dated March 2007, marked as Exhibit 1027
`
`·5· ·in both IPRs?
`
`·6· · · · A.· ·I believe I have an understanding of
`
`·7· ·this document, particularly in the context of how
`
`·8· ·it has been relied upon by Dr. Wolfe and others
`
`·9· ·in this IPR.
`
`10· · · · · · ·(Exhibit Number 1028 was previously
`
`11· · · · · · ·marked for identification.)
`
`12· · · · · · ·ATTORNEY CHANDLER:· Please turn to
`
`13· ·Exhibit 1028, which is the same in both IPRs, and
`
`14· ·let me know when you're there.
`
`15· · · · A.· ·I am there.
`
`16· · · · Q.· ·Have you carefully read the JEDEC
`
`17· ·JESD205 DDR2 SDRAM fully buffered DIMM design
`
`18· ·specification dated March 2007, marked as
`
`19· ·Exhibit 1028 in both IPRs?
`
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I believe I have.· This document
`
`21· ·looks a little odd.· I don't think it -- I don't
`
`22· ·recall if it matches exactly what I reviewed or
`
`23· ·not.
`
`24· · · · · · ·The reason I say it's odd is there's
`
`25· ·a -- there's a PDF enabled comment in the bottom
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 28
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·left.· If that was in the PDF that I reviewed --
`
`·2· ·I'm not saying it wasn't.· I just don't recall.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·But setting aside that issue, I did
`
`·4· ·review this document; and I have an understanding
`
`·5· ·of it specifically in the context of how it has
`
`·6· ·been relied upon by Dr. Wolfe and others in their
`
`·7· ·arguments regarding this IPR.
`
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And just for clarity, you referred to a
`
`·9· ·comment in the PDF.· Is there any content to that
`
`10· ·comment that you're referring to?
`
`11· · · · A.· ·There is, not that is meaningful to me.
`
`12· ·It says "Unmarked sent by" and then in uppercase,
`
`13· ·SLIQUORI.
`
`14· · · · · · ·I -- I have no idea what that means.
`
`15· · · · Q.· ·I think what that means is that when
`
`16· ·this was stamped by a paralegal, their name may
`
`17· ·have appeared.
`
`18· · · · A.· ·It doesn't -- it -- certainly doesn't
`
`19· ·seem to be meaningful and relevant to my analysis
`
`20· ·at all.· You know, it just makes me wonder if
`
`21· ·there's any comments or anything else later on in
`
`22· ·the document, but I have no reason to think there
`
`23· ·is.
`
`24· · · · Q.· ·And I'm not aware of any.· Again, I
`
`25· ·think that may be tied to the stamped
`
`Samsung Ex. 1075, p. 29
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00996
`
`
`
`·1· ·"
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
