`
`·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· ·"