In the Matter of:
`Sony Corporation vs
`Fujifilm Corporation
`
`William J. Vanderheyden
`February 27, 2019
`
`SONY Exhibit 1037
`SONY v. FUJI
`IPR2018-00876
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 3
`
`· Y
`
`
`
`YVer1fVer1f
`
`·1· · · · UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`·2· · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3· ·------------------------------x
`·4· · SONY CORPORATION,
`·5· · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`·6· · · · · · ·v.· · · · · · · · · · ·Case No. IPR2017-
`·7· · FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`·8· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner.
`·9· ·------------------------------x
`10
`· · · DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM J. VANDERHEYDEN
`11
`· · · · · · · · New York, New York
`12
`· · · · · ·Wednesday, February 27, 2019
`13
`· · · · · · · · · · 8:55 a.m.
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20· ·Reported by:
`· · ·LYNN VAN DEN HENDE
`21· ·CRR, RMR, RPR, CSR-NY, CSR-CA, CSR-IL
`· · ·JOB NO: 11836
`22
`23
`24
`
`·1· ·A P P E A R A N C E S:
`·2
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONER:
`·4· · · · ·WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`·5· · · · ·600 Atlantic Avenue
`·6· · · · ·Boston, MA 02210
`·7· · · · ·617-646-8275
`·8· · · · ·BY:· ·NATHAN R. SPEED, ESQ.
`·9· · · · · · · ·nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com
`10
`11· ·FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`12· · · · ·BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`13· · · · ·30 Rockefeller Plaza
`14· · · · ·New York, NY 10112-4498
`15· · · · ·212-408-2541
`16· · · · ·BY:· ·MARGARET M. WELSH, ESQ.
`17· · · · · · · ·margaret.welsh@bakerbotts.com
`18· · · · ·BY:· ·JENNIFER C. TEMPESTA, ESQ.
`19· · · · · · · ·jennifer.tempesta@bakerbotts.com
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
`·1
`·2
`·3· · · · · · · · · · ·February 27, 2019
`·4· · · · · · · · · · ·8:55 a.m.
`·5
`·6· · · · ·Deposition of WILLIAM J. VANDERHEYDEN,
`·7· ·held at the offices of Wolf Greenfield &
`·8· ·Sacks, P.C., 405 Lexington Avenue, New York,
`·9· ·New York, pursuant to Notice, before Lynn
`10· ·Van Den Hende, Certified Realtime Reporter,
`11· ·Registered Merit Reporter, State of New York
`12· ·Certified Shorthand Reporter, State of
`13· ·California Certified Shorthand Reporter,
`14· ·State of Illinois Certified Shorthand
`15· ·Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter,
`16· ·and Notary Public within and for the State
`17· ·of New York.
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`·1· ·W I L L I A M· J.· V A N D E R H E Y D E N,
`·2· · · ·called as a witness, having been duly
`·3· · · ·sworn by a Notary Public, was examined
`·4· · · ·and testified as follows:
`·5· · · · · · ·MR. SPEED:· Nathan Speed on
`·6· · · · behalf of the Sony petitioners.
`·7· · · · · · ·Good morning.
`·8· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Margaret Welsh,
`·9· · · · Baker Botts, on behalf of Fujifilm
`10· · · · patent owners.
`11· · · · · · ·And also with me is Jen
`12· · · · Tempesta with Baker Botts.
`13· ·EXAMINATION
`14· ·BY MR. SPEED:
`15· · · · Q.· ·Good morning.
`16· · · · · · ·Could you please spell your
`17· ·name for the record?
`18· · · · A.· ·Sure.
`19· · · · · · ·It's V-a-n-d-e-r-h-e-y-d-e-n.
`20· · · · Q.· ·And is it Vanderheyden?
`21· · · · A.· ·Vanderheyden.
`22· · · · Q.· ·Heyden, okay.· Thanks.
`23· · · · · · ·This isn't your first
`24· ·deposition, correct?
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·How many times have you been
`·3· ·deposed?
`·4· · · · A.· ·Twice before.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·You understand you're under
`·6· ·oath today?
`·7· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Yes, I do.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·I hand you an exhibit which
`·9· ·has been marked as Exhibit 2008.
`10· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`11· · · · Q.· ·Do you recognize this
`12· ·exhibit?
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`14· · · · Q.· ·And this is your declaration
`15· ·in this proceeding, correct?
`16· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And when I say "proceeding,"
`18· ·you understand that there's been two
`19· ·IPR petitions filed, correct?
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`21· · · · Q.· ·So there's technically two
`22· ·separate IPR proceedings, but you
`23· ·submitted one declaration for both
`24· ·proceedings, correct?
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 7
`
`·1· ·documents and other evidence cited in
`·2· ·my declaration.
`·3· · · · · · ·You know, there are other
`·4· ·things I considered, like my experience
`·5· ·in the field at that time.· So there --
`·6· ·there's things beyond this list.
`·7· · · · · · ·But this is the list cited
`·8· ·here, yes.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·Is there anything else you
`10· ·considered beyond your experience in
`11· ·forming the opinions provided in your
`12· ·declaration that's not listed on
`13· ·Exhibit 2?
`14· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`15· · · · A.· ·Not that I can think of right
`16· ·now.
`17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you review the
`18· ·petition that Sony filed in the -- what
`19· ·I'll call the 876 IPR proceeding?
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I read through that.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And did you review the
`22· ·petition that Sony filed in the 877
`23· ·proceeding?
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·If you could look at
`·3· ·paragraph 14 of your declaration.
`·4· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`·5· · · · A.· ·Okay.
`·6· · · · Q.· ·In paragraph 14 you state
`·7· ·that you've considered information from
`·8· ·various sources in forming your
`·9· ·opinion, is that correct?
`10· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`11· · · · Q.· ·And a list of those materials
`12· ·that you considered, is that Exhibit 2
`13· ·in your declaration?
`14· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`15· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· If we turn to Exhibit
`16· ·2 -- it's the very last page.· It
`17· ·should be the very last page of your
`18· ·declaration.· There you go.
`19· · · · · · ·So looking at Exhibit 2, is
`20· ·this an accurate list of all the
`21· ·materials you considered in preparing
`22· ·your declaration?
`23· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`24· · · · A.· ·This is -- this is a list of
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Did you review the
`·2· ·preliminary patent owner response that
`·3· ·Fujifilm submitted in the 876
`·4· ·proceeding?
`·5· · · · A.· ·Could you repeat that?
`·6· · · · Q.· ·Did you review the
`·7· ·preliminary patent owner response that
`·8· ·Fujifilm submitted in the 876
`·9· ·proceeding?
`10· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`11· · · · Q.· ·Did you disagree with any of
`12· ·the arguments that you were provided in
`13· ·that preliminary response?
`14· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A.· ·I believe I read it.
`16· · · · · · ·I don't believe I formed an
`17· ·opinion on -- on it.· I think I just
`18· ·read it for information.
`19· · · · Q.· ·And did you review the
`20· ·preliminary patent owner response that
`21· ·Fujifilm submitted in the 877
`22· ·proceeding?
`23· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`24· · · · Q.· ·And was that the same type of
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 5–8
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· ·review for information that you did
`·2· ·with the 876 preliminary response?
`·3· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·Did you review the
`·5· ·institution decision that the board
`·6· ·entered in the 876 proceeding?
`·7· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·And did you review the
`·9· ·institution decision that the board
`10· ·entered in the 877 proceeding?
`11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And looking at Exhibit
`13· ·2 of your declaration, listed there is
`14· ·Exhibit 2009.
`15· · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`16· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`17· · · · A.· ·Could you repeat that?
`18· · · · Q.· ·Yes.· You see listed in
`19· ·Exhibit 2 an Exhibit 2009?
`20· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And Exhibit 2009 is an
`22· ·initial determination in the matter of
`23· ·certain magnetic data storage and tapes
`24· ·and cartridges containing the same,
`Page 10
`
`·1· ·correct?
`·2· · · · A.· ·That's what it says, yes.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·All right.· And you signed an
`·4· ·agreement to be bound to the protective
`·5· ·order in investigation number
`·6· ·337TA1076, is that correct?
`·7· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Were you retained as an
`·9· ·expert by Fujifilm in that proceeding?
`10· · · · A.· ·Yes, I was.
`11· · · · Q.· ·And what was your role in
`12· ·that proceeding?
`13· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection.
`14· · · · · · ·I'll just caution you not to
`15· · · · reveal any attorney-client
`16· · · · privileged information.
`17· · · · A.· ·I advised on tape cartridge
`18· ·technology, general -- general
`19· ·information from my experience of many
`20· ·years of cartridge design development;
`21· ·primarily a, you know, technical
`22· ·advising role.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Were you compensated hourly
`24· ·for your declaration in this
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·proceeding?
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·How much were you paid per
`·4· ·hour?
`·5· · · · A.· ·$300.
`·6· · · · Q.· ·And how much time did you
`·7· ·spend on the declaration?
`·8· · · · A.· ·I would estimate about 100
`·9· ·hours.
`10· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall when Fujifilm
`11· ·retained you for this particular
`12· ·proceeding?
`13· · · · A.· ·I believe it was in November
`14· ·roughly.
`15· · · · Q.· ·How many times have you
`16· ·served as an expert witness in a patent
`17· ·matter?
`18· · · · A.· ·It's really just my -- my
`19· ·work over the last couple of years,
`20· ·which includes 779 IPR and, you know,
`21· ·this IPR.
`22· · · · · · ·And then my work with the
`23· ·ITC, that was more, as I mentioned,
`24· ·just advising on the technology.
`
`Page 12
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever testify at an
`·2· ·ITC hearing?
`·3· · · · A.· ·I have not.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·So has all of your expert
`·5· ·witness work with respect to patent
`·6· ·matters been for Fujifilm?
`·7· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·In the 779 IPR was Fujifilm
`10· ·the petitioner?
`11· · · · A.· ·I believe Sony was the
`12· ·petitioner.
`13· · · · Q.· ·If we look at paragraph 282
`14· ·of your declaration, you state that you
`15· ·reserve the right to supplement your
`16· ·opinion to take into account new
`17· ·information that becomes available to
`18· ·you, correct?
`19· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Has any new -- any such new
`21· ·information become available to you?
`22· · · · A.· ·Not that I can recall or not
`23· ·that would change my opinions in this
`24· ·declaration.
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 9–12
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 13
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·So do you have any
`·2· ·supplemental opinions to add to this
`·3· ·declaration at this time?
`·4· · · · A.· ·Not at this time.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Now, you graduated from the
`·6· ·University of Wisconsin in 1991, is
`·7· ·that correct?
`·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·And what was your degree?
`10· · · · A.· ·Mechanical engineering.
`11· · · · Q.· ·And after graduating from the
`12· ·University of Wisconsin you joined 3M?
`13· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`14· · · · Q.· ·And when did you start at 3M?
`15· · · · A.· ·In 1991.
`16· · · · Q.· ·And during your time at 3M
`17· ·you became familiar with the components
`18· ·of the 3480-type cartridge, is that
`19· ·correct?
`20· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`21· · · · Q.· ·In using the foundational
`22· ·knowledge you gained about the
`23· ·3480-type cartridge, you then worked on
`24· ·several future iterations of storage
`
`Page 14
`
`·1· ·tapes, is that correct?
`·2· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·And this included -- I'm
`·4· ·looking at paragraph 6 of your
`·5· ·declaration, if it helps.
`·6· · · · · · ·But these future iterations
`·7· ·included a 3490 cartridge?
`·8· · · · A.· ·That is right.
`·9· · · · Q.· ·And the future iterations
`10· ·included a Timberline cartridge, is
`11· ·that correct?
`12· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`13· · · · Q.· ·Future iterations included an
`14· ·SD-3 cartridge?
`15· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`16· · · · Q.· ·And the future iterations
`17· ·included a 3490 cartridge, correct?
`18· · · · A.· ·Did you mean 3590?
`19· · · · Q.· ·Sorry, yes.
`20· · · · · · ·The future iterations
`21· ·included a 3590 cartridge?
`22· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`23· · · · Q.· ·And the future iterations
`24· ·included a QIC cartridge?
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 15
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Does "QIC" stand for
`·3· ·anything?
`·4· · · · A.· ·Quarter inch cartridge.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·In each of those future
`·6· ·iterations was a data storage tape, is
`·7· ·that correct?
`·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`·9· · · · · · ·Those are all data storage
`10· ·tape cartridges.
`11· · · · Q.· ·And over what period of time
`12· ·did you assist in the development of
`13· ·these cartridges?
`14· · · · A.· ·When I joined 3M in 1991,
`15· ·they had purchased the 3480 business
`16· ·from IBM, and began at that time as
`17· ·part of a technical team that met with
`18· ·the IBM engineers to understand the
`19· ·workings of the 3480 tape cartridge and
`20· ·gained their expertise.
`21· · · · · · ·Then went on to -- so through
`22· ·1991 through -- '91 through '96 it was
`23· ·3M.
`24· · · · · · ·And then '96 through '99 they
`Page 16
`
`·1· ·spun it off to be Imation.
`·2· · · · · · ·But throughout those years
`·3· ·the team I was on developed components,
`·4· ·mechanisms for cartridge -- for tape
`·5· ·cartridges, including all these here.
`·6· · · · · · ·So the -- you know, kind of
`·7· ·in order, the 3480, the 3490.· And
`·8· ·Timberline came next.· Then SD-3 3590
`·9· ·came after that.· Quarter inch
`10· ·cartridge was -- was being made.
`11· · · · · · ·You know, through those years
`12· ·also I didn't -- so I assisted on that,
`13· ·on that quarter inch cartridge, you
`14· ·know, through those years as well.
`15· · · · Q.· ·And how did your foundational
`16· ·knowledge of the 3480-type cartridge
`17· ·assist in the design of those future
`18· ·iterations?
`19· · · · A.· ·Well, I gained some of the,
`20· ·you know, concerns and understanding of
`21· ·what's important in a tape cartridge.
`22· · · · Q.· ·And you applied that -- those
`23· ·understandings to your development of
`24· ·future iterations of data storage tape
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 13–16
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 17
`
`·1· ·products?
`·2· · · · A.· ·For instance, the -- the hub
`·3· ·has to be a -- a near perfect cylinder.
`·4· ·It takes a lot of pressure.· There's
`·5· ·concerns related to that.
`·6· · · · · · ·That's something for instance
`·7· ·that I would have used.
`·8· · · · Q.· ·When did 3M spin off its data
`·9· ·storage business into Imation?
`10· · · · A.· ·I believe it was July 1996.
`11· · · · Q.· ·While at Imation you were
`12· ·involved in developing the mechanical
`13· ·components for the 9840-type data
`14· ·storage cartridge, correct?
`15· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`16· · · · Q.· ·What mechanical components
`17· ·did you design?
`18· · · · A.· ·Base cover, hub flange, reel
`19· ·locks.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Any other components?
`21· · · · A.· ·A door, door spring.
`22· · · · · · ·Either -- you know, it was
`23· ·pins and a base plate that I worked on
`24· ·somewhat as well.
`
`Page 18
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·How did the design of the
`·2· ·9840-type cartridge compare to the
`·3· ·3480-type cartridge?
`·4· · · · A.· ·So 9840 actually had -- was a
`·5· ·dual reel cartridge, whereas the 3480
`·6· ·was a single reel, where the other
`·7· ·reels is in the tape drive, and the
`·8· ·tape is dry out across the heads
`·9· ·through guides and on to a take-up reel
`10· ·or a reel in the drive.
`11· · · · · · ·The 9840 was a fast access
`12· ·cartridge drive system that had both
`13· ·reels inside of the cartridge.
`14· · · · Q.· ·Was the reel lock mechanism
`15· ·in the 9840 similar to the reel lock
`16· ·mechanism in the 3480-type cartridge?
`17· · · · A.· ·No, it was very different.
`18· · · · Q.· ·How was it different?
`19· · · · A.· ·It was -- so the reels were
`20· ·mounted on pins on a base plate.
`21· · · · · · ·The reel lock was on top of
`22· ·the reel, on top of a spring.· And it
`23· ·pushed up and locked into the cover.
`24· · · · · · ·And it was, you know, pushed
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 19
`
`·1· ·down by the teeth of the tape drive to
`·2· ·release when the reels were rotated.
`·3· · · · · · ·And the 3480 has a brake
`·4· ·button which is -- it's located more
`·5· ·inside of the reel.
`·6· · · · · · ·So there is a post from the
`·7· ·drive.· It comes up through the --
`·8· ·through a hole in the reel.· It pushes
`·9· ·on the brake button to release -- to
`10· ·release it from the reel.
`11· · · · · · ·So much different.
`12· · · · Q.· ·While at Imation you were
`13· ·involved in the initial review of the
`14· ·first generation linear tape open
`15· ·consortium cartridge specification,
`16· ·correct?
`17· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`18· · · · Q.· ·What was your involvement?
`19· · · · A.· ·I was part of a team that
`20· ·received the initial specification and
`21· ·reviewed that specification and then
`22· ·assessed what additional design work
`23· ·would be needed to complete the design
`24· ·and development of the LTO cartridge at
`Page 20
`
`·1· ·Imation.
`·2· · · · · · ·It's short for linear tape
`·3· ·open.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·And what additional design
`·5· ·work did you identify?
`·6· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·7· · · · A.· ·The specification was more of
`·8· ·an interface spec which defined the
`·9· ·outer dimensions of the cartridge and
`10· ·the inner face dimensions of the -- of
`11· ·the reel.
`12· · · · · · ·But it did not specify all
`13· ·the internal features of components.
`14· · · · · · ·So that work would need to be
`15· ·done yet.
`16· · · · Q.· ·Did you propose any of those
`17· ·additional design changes to the LTO
`18· ·consortium?
`19· · · · A.· ·Not to the consortium.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Did you meet individuals from
`21· ·HP who were involved in the LTO
`22· ·consortium?
`23· · · · A.· ·Not at that time.
`24· · · · Q.· ·Did you meet them at a later
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 17–20
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 21
`
`·1· ·time?
`·2· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·When did you meet them?
`·4· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·5· · · · A.· ·Many years later there was
`·6· ·typical -- typically consortium
`·7· ·meetings between the companies to share
`·8· ·technology, more like technology
`·9· ·sharing conferences almost than a
`10· ·consortium.
`11· · · · · · ·It would have been at those
`12· ·consortium meetings that I met some
`13· ·of -- some people from HP, for
`14· ·instance, and IBM and Seagate.
`15· · · · Q.· ·Do you recall the names of
`16· ·any of the individuals from HP that you
`17· ·met with at those conferences?
`18· · · · A.· ·I don't recall.
`19· · · · Q.· ·Did you ever meet a Jeff
`20· ·McAllister from HP?
`21· · · · A.· ·I believe I did.
`22· · · · Q.· ·And that would have been at
`23· ·one of those conferences?
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`Page 22
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And what about Thomas
`·2· ·von Alten?
`·3· · · · A.· ·No, I don't believe I ever
`·4· ·knew of him being involved in LTO
`·5· ·until -- until recently, when being
`·6· ·involved with this case.
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And you left Imation in 1999
`·8· ·to join Benchmark Storage Innovation,
`·9· ·is that correct?
`10· · · · A.· ·That's correct.
`11· · · · Q.· ·When do you recall the LTO
`12· ·cartridges became commercially
`13· ·available?
`14· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A.· ·I believe it was around the
`16· ·year 2000.
`17· · · · Q.· ·When the LTO cartridge first
`18· ·became commercially available, did
`19· ·Imation cease selling 3480 cartridges?
`20· · · · A.· ·No, they did not.
`21· · · · Q.· ·For how long after the
`22· ·release of the LTO cartridge did
`23· ·Imation continue to sell 3480
`24· ·cartridges?
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 23
`
`·1· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection,
`·2· · · · relevance.
`·3· · · · A.· ·Is your question 3480
`·4· ·cartridges or 3480 form factor
`·5· ·cartridges, such -- like 3490 or 3590?
`·6· · · · · · ·Are you asking just the 3480
`·7· ·cartridge?
`·8· · · · Q.· ·Well, I guess I'll ask both.
`·9· · · · · · ·So start with the 3480
`10· ·cartridge.
`11· · · · · · ·Do you recall when, if at
`12· ·all, Imation ceased selling the
`13· ·3480-type cartridge?
`14· · · · A.· ·I don't remember when it
`15· ·stopped.
`16· · · · · · ·But that -- that cartridge
`17· ·was initially developed in mid-'80s.
`18· ·And so I don't think it was in -- I
`19· ·don't think it was in use beyond the
`20· ·late '90s.
`21· · · · · · ·But I'm more familiar with,
`22· ·you know, the new formats as they came
`23· ·out and were being sold, not so much
`24· ·what some company might have been doing
`
`Page 24
`
`·1· ·with very old formats.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And for the 3480 form factor
`·3· ·cartridges, when did those cease, if at
`·4· ·all, cease being sold by Imation?
`·5· · · · A.· ·Well, Imation no longer
`·6· ·exists now.· So they definitely stopped
`·7· ·in the last few years when the company
`·8· ·is gone.
`·9· · · · · · ·The 3480-type -- so the 3480
`10· ·form factor, which is basically the
`11· ·outer size of the cartridge, that --
`12· ·that continued even through my work at
`13· ·Oracle, when I worked at T10000.
`14· · · · · · ·Cartridges A, B, C, D, E,
`15· ·tape drives and cartridge systems, that
`16· ·was the same 3480 form factor.
`17· · · · · · ·So those, I believe, are
`18· ·still being sold, although not by
`19· ·Imation at this point.
`20· · · · · · ·So until -- until maybe a few
`21· ·years ago there was some 3480 form
`22· ·factor type of cartridge still being
`23· ·sold.
`24· · · · Q.· ·At Benchmark Storage
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 21–24
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 25
`
`·1· ·Innovation you led the mechanical
`·2· ·design and development of the VS tape
`·3· ·cartridge, is that right?
`·4· · · · A.· ·That's right.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·Did the VS tape cartridge
`·6· ·compete with the 3480-type cartridges?
`·7· · · · A.· ·The -- they were in different
`·8· ·market segments.
`·9· · · · · · ·There might have been some,
`10· ·you know, competition or overlap there.
`11· · · · · · ·But the 3480 was more
`12· ·enterprise level, which was the very
`13· ·large companies with massive amounts of
`14· ·data to store.
`15· · · · · · ·The VS was a lower end
`16· ·midrange tape drive cartridge system.
`17· · · · · · ·So there may have been some
`18· ·competition, but it wasn't -- it wasn't
`19· ·direct competition.
`20· · · · Q.· ·Did the VS tape cartridge
`21· ·compete with the LTO-type cartridges?
`22· · · · A.· ·Yes, it did.
`23· · · · Q.· ·Did the VS tape cartridge
`24· ·include reel lock?
`
`Page 26
`
`·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, it did.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·Can you describe at a high
`·3· ·level the reel lock of the VS tape
`·4· ·cartridge?
`·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.· The reel lock there
`·6· ·used teeth around the perimeter of the
`·7· ·flange.
`·8· · · · · · ·And it had these -- the reel
`·9· ·lock components there were small --
`10· ·small parts that were on -- that had
`11· ·torsion springs.
`12· · · · · · ·And they would rotate inward
`13· ·and contact the outer diameter of the
`14· ·flange with -- they had little teeth on
`15· ·them that would match with the teeth on
`16· ·the outer diameter of the flange.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And in 2003 you joined
`18· ·Oracle, correct?
`19· · · · A.· ·In 2003 I joined Storage
`20· ·Tech.
`21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· What's Storage Tech's
`22· ·relationship to Oracle?
`23· · · · A.· ·Storage Tech was acquired by
`24· ·Sun Microsystems.
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 27
`
`·1· · · · · · ·And then Sun Microsystems was
`·2· ·acquired by Oracle.
`·3· · · · Q.· ·I should read the footnotes.
`·4· · · · · · ·At paragraph 10 of your
`·5· ·declaration you refer to the T10000
`·6· ·series of tape cartridges as an updated
`·7· ·model of the 3480-type cartridges, is
`·8· ·that correct?
`·9· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`10· · · · A.· ·That is correct.
`11· · · · Q.· ·What do you mean by, "an
`12· ·updated model"?
`13· · · · A.· ·So over time the number of
`14· ·tracks on the tape get to be more and
`15· ·more -- you know, store more and more
`16· ·amounts of data.
`17· · · · · · ·The 3480 was 18 tracks, I
`18· ·believe.
`19· · · · · · ·And the final generation of
`20· ·T10000 I worked on was 7,000 tracks
`21· ·across a half inch of tape.
`22· · · · · · ·So, you know -- so to go
`23· ·from, you know, 18 to 7,000 there had
`24· ·to be major improvements continuously
`Page 28
`
`·1· ·with each generation to be able to
`·2· ·double -- kind of double performance.
`·3· · · · · · ·We'd increase speed.· We'd
`·4· ·increase capacity.
`·5· · · · · · ·And so a lot of -- a lot of
`·6· ·minor improvements.
`·7· · · · · · ·But the -- the hub, for
`·8· ·instance, when there was only 18
`·9· ·tracks, the -- if the hub wasn't -- if
`10· ·there was some imperfections in the
`11· ·hub, say -- say a dip in the winding
`12· ·surface due to molding shrinkage or
`13· ·something like that, it might only take
`14· ·out a quarter of the width of the
`15· ·track, say, in 3480, but in T10000 it
`16· ·might have taken out 4 tracks of data.
`17· · · · · · ·So you have data loss.
`18· · · · · · ·So there was -- there was
`19· ·improvements needed over time because
`20· ·of those increased performance,
`21· ·increased capacity requirements.
`22· · · · Q.· ·You're named in better than
`23· ·over 50 patents correct?
`24· · · · A.· ·Correct.· I think 56 on last
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 25–28
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 29
`
`·1· ·count.
`·2· · · · Q.· ·And prior to this proceeding
`·3· ·you have offered opinions on whether
`·4· ·patent claims were anticipated by the
`·5· ·prior art, correct?
`·6· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And prior to this proceeding
`·8· ·you have offered opinions on whether
`·9· ·patent claims were -- were obvious over
`10· ·the prior art, correct?
`11· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Now, you understand that a
`13· ·claim is considered anticipated if a
`14· ·single prior art reference discloses
`15· ·all elements of the claim?
`16· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`17· · · · Q.· ·And the necessary disclosure
`18· ·on the prior art can be explicit, is
`19· ·that correct?
`20· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`21· · · · Q.· ·And what's your understanding
`22· ·of explicit disclosure?
`23· · · · A.· ·I mean, it's actually stated
`24· ·or shown.
`
`Page 30
`·1· · · · Q.· ·Does the disclosure in the
`·2· ·prior art need to be word-for-word
`·3· ·identical to the language of a claim?
`·4· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·5· · · · A.· ·Could you restate the
`·6· ·question?
`·7· · · · Q.· ·Does the disclosure in the
`·8· ·prior art need to be word-for-word
`·9· ·identical to the language of a claim
`10· ·for explicit disclosure?
`11· · · · A.· ·I don't believe so.
`12· · · · Q.· ·Can a patent figure provide
`13· ·disclosure sufficient to anticipate a
`14· ·claim?
`15· · · · A.· ·Could you repeat the
`16· ·question?
`17· · · · Q.· ·Can a patent figure provide
`18· ·disclosure sufficient to anticipate a
`19· ·claim?
`20· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`21· · · · A.· ·So to determine if a patent
`22· ·anticipates a claim, I would review
`23· ·the -- the figures, but also the
`24· ·specification, and make sure there was
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 31
`
`·1· ·a good understanding of -- of what was
`·2· ·stated and what was shown in the
`·3· ·patent.
`·4· · · · Q.· ·So determining whether or not
`·5· ·a prior art reference anticipates a
`·6· ·claim you would consider the patent
`·7· ·figures, correct?
`·8· · · · A.· ·I would consider the patent
`·9· ·figures and the specification.
`10· · · · Q.· ·Now, the necessary disclosure
`11· ·in the prior art to anticipate a claim
`12· ·can also be inherent disclosure,
`13· ·correct?
`14· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`15· · · · Q.· ·And what's your understanding
`16· ·of inherent disclosure?
`17· · · · A.· ·That it -- it must be there,
`18· ·that it's necessarily there.
`19· · · · Q.· ·And you understand the claim
`20· ·is unpatentable if the subject matter
`21· ·of the claim would have been obvious to
`22· ·a person of ordinary skill in the art?
`23· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A.· ·Yes.
`
`Page 32
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·And determining whether the
`·2· ·subject matter of a claim would have
`·3· ·been obvious is considered from the
`·4· ·point of view of a person of ordinary
`·5· ·skill in the art, correct?
`·6· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`·7· · · · Q.· ·And you agree that
`·8· ·contemporaneous and independent
`·9· ·invention by others is a secondary
`10· ·consideration supporting an obviousness
`11· ·determination, right?
`12· · · · · · ·Paragraph 23.
`13· · · · A.· ·Yes, I understand that the
`14· ·contemporaneous and independent
`15· ·invention by others is a secondary
`16· ·consideration supporting an obviousness
`17· ·determinage.
`18· · · · Q.· ·Why is that?
`19· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`20· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`21· · · · A.· ·I believe because if a number
`22· ·of people are inventing this, people
`23· ·skilled in the art are independently
`24· ·inventing this, it's probably more
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`888.825.3376 - production@court-reporting.com
`
`Pages 29–32
`
`
`
`YVer1fYVer1f
`
`

`

`
`Sony Corporation vsSony Corporation vs
`
`Fujifilm CorporationFujifilm Corporation
`
`Page 33
`
`·1· ·evidence of it being obvious.
`·2· · · · · · ·That's my opinion on it; I
`·3· ·guess my guess on it, not being a
`·4· ·lawyer.
`·5· · · · Q.· ·You agree that sometimes a
`·6· ·nexus linking two or more references is
`·7· ·simple common sense, correct?
`·8· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·9· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`10· · · · A.· ·I want to read that section
`11· ·over in my declaration, if you know
`12· ·where it is.
`13· · · · Q.· ·Oh, it's paragraph 24.
`14· · · · A.· ·24?
`15· · · · Q.· ·Yes.
`16· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`17· · · · A.· ·And could you repeat the
`18· ·question?
`19· · · · Q.· ·You agree that sometimes a
`20· ·nexus linking two or more references is
`21· ·simple common sense, correct?
`22· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Same objection.
`23· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`24· · · · Q.· ·So, in other words, common
`Page 34
`
`·1· ·sense can sometimes provide the reasons
`·2· ·to combine the teachings of the prior
`·3· ·art?
`·4· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·5· · · · A.· ·Just what I state here.
`·6· · · · · · ·"In other circumstances, a
`·7· ·nexus linking two or more prior art
`·8· ·references is simple common sense."
`·9· · · · Q.· ·And what do you mean by,
`10· ·"linking two or more references," in
`11· ·that section that you wrote?
`12· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`13· · · · A.· ·These are the legal standards
`14· ·I've been informed of and I'm just
`15· ·writing here.
`16· · · · · · ·I think I would have to look
`17· ·at the situation and decide if this
`18· ·would apply or not.
`19· · · · Q.· ·These legal standards that
`20· ·are set forth from paragraphs 15 to 34
`21· ·of your declaration were the standards
`22· ·you applied in developing your opinions
`23· ·in this proceeding, correct?
`24· · · · A.· ·Correct.
`
`William J. VanderheydenWilliam J. Vanderheyden
`
`February 27, 2019
`Page 35
`
`·1· · · · Q.· ·When you applied these legal
`·2· ·standards, did you have an
`·3· ·understanding of what you meant by,
`·4· ·"nexus linking two or more prior art
`·5· ·references is simple common sense"?
`·6· · · · · · ·MS. WELSH:· Objection, form.
`·7· · · · · · ·(Document review.)
`·8· · · · A.· ·Yeah, I think I meant there
`·9· ·could be -- there may be -- the
`10· ·references themself may provide a
`11· ·suggestion or motivation or reason to
`12· ·combine their teachings.· There may be
`13· ·something connecting them that would
`14· ·make you want to combine their
`15· ·teachin