`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` 1 UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER
`
` 2 IN THE MATTER OF
`
` 3 CERTAIN MOTORIZED SELF‐BALANCING VEHICLES
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
` The following transcript of proceedings, or any
` 7 portion thereof, in the above‐entitled matter, taken on
` June 4th, 2025, is being prepared, as directed
` 8 by the digital reporter of record, by Esquire
` Deposition Solutions, and being delivered UNEDITED AND
` 9 UNCERTIFIED.
`
` 10 Since this transcript has not been checked, proofread,
` or corrected, counsel should not quote from this draft
` 11 in pleadings or elsewhere. Counsel who request this
` rough draft are obligated to purchase the certified
` 12 final transcript, which is the only official record
` that may be relied upon for verbatim citation of
` 13 testimony and use at trial.
`
` 14 As a rough draft transcript it may contain electronic
` transmission errors resulting in inaccurate or
` 15 nonsensical word combinations or symbols which cannot
` be deciphered. Corrections will be made in the
` 16 preparation of the final certified transcript resulting
` in differences in content, page and line numbers,
` 17 punctuation and formatting.
`
` 18 This uncertified and unedited transcript contains no
` appearance page, index, or certificate pages.
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
`
`
` 24
`
` 25
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
`
` 2
`
` 1 THE REPORTER: Thank you. We are now on the
`
` 2 record at 11:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time on June 4,
`
` 3 2025, to take the deposition of David Hartup for
`
` 4 investigation number 337‐TA‐1440 In The Matter of
`
` 5 Certain Motorized Self Balancing Vehicles. My name is
`
` 6 William Cisar, notary public and digital reporter in
`
` 7 the State of Ohio appearing on behalf of Esquire
`
` 8 Deposition Solutions. The witness is currently located
`
` 9 in Westchester, Ohio and has confirmed their identity
`
` 10 with a driver's license issued by the Ohio Bureau of
`
` 11 Motor Vehicles. Pursuant to US ITC's Rules of Practice
`
` 12 and Procedure, I'll be capturing the verbatim record of
`
` 13 today's proceeding using electronic audio equipment, a
`
` 14 computer, and specialized recording software, which is
`
` 15 not a form of stenography.
`
` 16 Will everyone in attendance, please identify
`
` 17 yourself for the record and state whom you represent.
`
` 18 MR. HODGES: Ben Hodges from the law firm of
`
` 19 Foster Garvey, and we represent the complainants.
`
` 20 MR. WANG: Timothy Wang from the law firm of
`
` 21 Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC. We represent the Respondent,
`
`
`
` 22 Golabs, Inc.
`
` 23 THE REPORTER: Okay. Yeah. Dr. Hartup.
`
` 24 MR. HARTUP: My name is David Hartup, and I
`
` 25 represent the respondents.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 3
`
` 1 THE REPORTER: Thank you. Absent any
`
` 2 objection at this time, counsel and the witness agree
`
` 3 to my remote administration of the oath to this
`
` 4 witness, and that the final transcript may be used for
`
` 5 all purposes allowed by the US ITC rules. Hearing no
`
` 6 objection, I will now swear in the witness.
`
` 7 Please raise your right hand.
`
` 8 Dr. DAVID HARTUP,
`
` 9 Having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` 10 THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` 11 Counsel. You may proceed.
`
` 12 MR. HODGES: Thank you very much.
`
` 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
` 14 Q. Thank you, Dr. Hartup, for making some time
`
` 15 for us today. I really appreciate it.
`
` 16 A. You're welcome.
`
` 17 Q. Just to get some ground rules out, obviously,
`
` 18 we've got a remote deposition set up, which makes it
`
` 19 even more important that we try not to talk over each
`
` 20 other today. So I'm going to try to make sure that I
`
`
`
` 21 finish my question succinctly, and I will try not to
`
` 22 interrupt your answers. But if at any point in time we
`
` 23 find that happening, please just let me know and we'll
`
` 24 do our best to not talk over each other. Does that
`
` 25 sound good?
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 4
`
` 1 A. That's great.
`
` 2 Q. And you did a great job right there of giving
`
` 3 an audible response. So I ask that you make sure to
`
` 4 give an audible response and not just a, you know, a
`
` 5 shrug or any sort of gesture and make it clear for the
`
` 6 court reporter who's taking all this stuff down. Does
`
` 7 that sound like a good plan?
`
` 8 A. That sounds great also, yes.
`
` 9 Q. And famous last words from an attorney. I'm
`
` 10 going to try to not make this go too long, but if at
`
` 11 any point in time, you need a break, just let me know.
`
` 12 This is not meant to be any more torturous than any
`
` 13 meeting with attorneys always is. So if you need a
`
` 14 break, just let me know. The only thing I'll ask is
`
` 15 that you probably, if there's a question outstanding,
`
` 16 I'll ask that you answer that question and then we'll
`
` 17 take a break if you need it throughout the day. Does
`
` 18 that sound okay?
`
`
`
` 19 A. Yes, that sounds good.
`
` 20 Q. And is there anything any medications, any
`
` 21 medical issues that would prevent you from giving full
`
` 22 and accurate testimony today?
`
` 23 A. No. There's no ‐‐ no issues.
`
` 24 Q. Okay. So it's the weird question that
`
` 25 attorneys always have to ask. I was as a young
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 5
`
` 1 attorney, I was in a deposition that that was not
`
` 2 asked, and then the deponent suddenly disappeared from
`
` 3 medical issues. So always good to do it.
`
` 4 So with all of that, other background
`
` 5 information, have you been deposed before?
`
` 6 A. I have been deposed, yes.
`
` 7 Q. How many times have you been deposed?
`
` 8 A. I believe it was on two different occasions.
`
` 9 Q. And can you tell me what those two occasions,
`
` 10 like what cases those were for?
`
` 11 A. I believe that one of them was for a case
`
` 12 involving battery chargers and another one was for a
`
` 13 case involving hoverboards.
`
` 14 Q. Okay. Now, we're going to start with
`
` 15 background exhibits today. I sent you all of these via
`
` 16 e‐mail, so you're welcome to look at them that way, if
`
` 17 you want. I'm also going to screen share. Do you see
`
`
`
` 18 what I have up on the screen?
`
` 19 A. Let me get back to the meeting. I see in
`
` 20 Exhibit B, yes.
`
` 21 Q. Perfect. This is going to just drive Bill
`
` 22 crazy all day to day because these were exhibits to the
`
` 23 claim construction brief, so they already have the ‐‐
`
` 24 all your expert report, so they already have their own
`
` 25 exhibit names, but we'll call it Exhibit whatever Bill
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 6
`
` 1 wants to call it for today.
`
` 2 This is, I believe, a list of cases that you
`
` 3 provided ‐‐ that you have provided testimony in before;
`
` 4 is that correct?
`
` 5 A. That is correct, yes. That's a list that I
`
` 6 provided.
`
` 7 Q. Is this a complete list?
`
` 8 A. It is not a complete list. I actually found
`
` 9 one this morning, an additional case that I had worked
`
` 10 on.
`
` 11 Q. And what case would that be?
`
` 12 A. So it was a case involving a DGL, I believe,
`
` 13 versus a hangs out cheek, where companies involved in
`
` 14 the case, and it involved a case dealing with wheel
`
` 15 transport technology.
`
`
`
` 16 Q. And what type of wheel transport technology?
`
` 17 Can you be able to tell those?
`
` 18 A. Yeah. So it was a case involving hover boards
`
` 19 that are very similar to the devices that are part of
`
` 20 this case.
`
` 21 Q. And who did you testify for in that case?
`
` 22 A. I testified for Hang Jo Cheek (phonetic), I
`
` 23 believe it's pronounced.
`
` 24 Q. Okay. Do you remember if they were the
`
` 25 plaintiff or the defendant?
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 7
`
` 1 A. I believe they were the defendant, but I'm not
`
` 2 sure.
`
` 3 Q. Yeah. Were they accused of patent
`
` 4 infringement or were they asserting a patent?
`
` 5 A. So yeah. If I knew that, I could probably
`
` 6 answer your previous question, but I'm just not a ‐‐
`
` 7 not 100 percent sure of ‐‐ of which position was in.
`
` 8 It was ‐‐
`
` 9 Q. And I guess that was ‐‐ so I was presuming
`
` 10 that it was a patent infringement matter; is that
`
` 11 accurate?
`
` 12 A. So the ‐‐ the ‐‐ I ‐‐ the work I did, I
`
` 13 believe, was mainly dealing with IPR proceedings and
`
` 14 some ‐‐ some claim constructions.
`
`
`
` 15 Q. Okay.
`
` 16 A. None ‐‐ none of the claim constructions ‐‐ I
`
` 17 did look through, none of the claim constructions
`
` 18 were ‐‐ were like those of the terms that are part of
`
` 19 this cases claims construction or this proceedings,
`
` 20 claims constructions.
`
` 21 Q. Okay. Other than that case that's missing,
`
` 22 did you ‐‐ you didn't ‐‐there's nothing else missing
`
` 23 from this list of cases?
`
` 24 A. Not that I know of. I can't say with absolute
`
` 25 certainty, of course, but nothing ‐‐ nothing else that
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 8
`
` 1 I know of. So I mean, the other case was just ‐‐ it
`
` 2 was just an oversight. I didn't mean to hide it or
`
` 3 anything. I just happened to ‐‐ to run across it this
`
` 4 morning and I see no conflict of interest or anything
`
` 5 with ‐ with the current case.
`
` 6 Q. Okay. Are all of these patent cases?
`
` 7 A. So certainly they're all dealing with patents.
`
` 8 I'm not ‐‐ I'm not a patent lawyer, so I don't know
`
` 9 exactly what you mean by patent cases.
`
` 10 Q. If they were all dealing with patents,
`
` 11 that's ‐‐ that's enough. That's just what I was asking
`
` 12 for.
`
`
`
` 13 A. Okay.
`
` 14 Q. Have you worked with any of the law firms
`
` 15 involved in this case before?
`
` 16 A. So I don't know what all law firms are
`
` 17 involved in this case, but I have worked with Tim's law
`
` 18 firm previously.
`
` 19 Q. How many times have you worked with Tim's law
`
` 20 firm previously?
`
` 21 A. I would say on maybe approximately three
`
` 22 different cases. Yeah. And that it could be more.
`
` 23 There was a lot of dealings with battery charger cases,
`
` 24 so I don't know. Again, I'm not a patent lawyer. I
`
` 25 don't understand which of those would be considered as
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 9
`
` 1 separate cases.
`
` 2 Q. Do you remember the times that you worked with
`
` 3 Tim's firm before or whether you were on the patent
`
` 4 owners side or the accused side?
`
` 5 A. I know I've been on the accused side. I don't
`
` 6 recall if I've been on the patent owners or not.
`
` 7 Q. Okay. Take this down and bring up our next
`
` 8 exhibit for the day, which we'll probably be going back
`
` 9 to quite a bit. It's the next exhibit which helpfully
`
` 10 is labeled as Exhibit 11, but do you recognize this?
`
` 11 A. Yes, I do recognize that.
`
`
`
` 12 Q. And what do you recognize it as?
`
` 13 A. So it looks like the title page on the expert
`
` 14 report that I've provided for ‐‐ for this proceeding.
`
` 15 Q. Okay. And I will just do a quick scroll to
`
` 16 let you see that it's the entire report, I believe.
`
` 17 And I did e‐mail that to you. So as we go through
`
` 18 today, if you ‐‐ if it's easier for you to look at in
`
` 19 your own file, feel free. I want to make sure that we
`
` 20 do this as easy as possible for you.
`
` 21 A. Okay.
`
` 22 Q. What materials did you review before coming up
`
` 23 with this opinion?
`
` 24 A. For that, I'd like to take a look at the
`
` 25 report. So I'm going to go ahead and bring up my
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 10
`
` 1 report.
`
` 2 Q. Feel free. As I said, I want to make sure
`
` 3 that it's easy for you.
`
` 4 A. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
`
` 5 THE REPORTER: So while he's looking at that,
`
` 6 we had another person join. So could you please
`
` 7 identify yourself for the record?
`
` 8 MR. KATZENELLENBOGEN: If that was me, it's
`
` 9 Ben Katzenellenbogen from Knobbe Martens.
`
`
`
` 10 THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` 11 THE WITNESS: All right. So in my report, in
`
` 12 Section 5, it discusses the materials that I looked at,
`
` 13 and I'll summarize that for you. So certainly the
`
` 14 documents and materials cited in this report itself,
`
` 15 the references in the parties claim construction
`
` 16 disclosures also.
`
` 17 BY MR. HODGES:
`
` 18 Q. Did you review any prior claim constructions?
`
` 19 A. I reviewed the ‐‐ what were called the opening
`
` 20 claim constructions briefs of both the complainants and
`
` 21 respondents for this proceeding.
`
` 22 Q. Okay. One of the asserted patents has been
`
` 23 construed in a New Jersey case before. Did you review
`
` 24 the court order from that New Jersey case?
`
` 25 A. I did not review that, no.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 11
`
` 1 Q. And a related patent, the 278 patent was
`
` 2 previously construed by the ITC in a previous
`
` 3 proceeding. Did you review that construction?
`
` 4 A. I did not review that either, no.
`
` 5 Q. Okay. I'll stop sharing for now. We'll go
`
` 6 back and forth between these through the day. Is there
`
` 7 a reason why you didn't review those prior
`
` 8 constructions that we just talked about?
`
`
`
` 9 A. I would review the materials that my attorneys
`
` 10 that I'm working with asked me to review, and that was
`
` 11 not one of the specific materials. And in reading, I
`
` 12 didn't ‐‐ I saw nothing that indicated that those would
`
` 13 be relevant or binding on this particular case.
`
` 14 Q. Okay. And that brings up a side question, I
`
` 15 forgot to ask this earlier. What did you do to prepare
`
` 16 for today's deposition?
`
` 17 A. So I read through both ‐‐ I read through the
`
` 18 three patents that are part of this proceeding. Two of
`
` 19 them are utility patents. One of them is a design
`
` 20 patent. And I also read through the respondent's
`
` 21 opening claim construction brief. I read through the
`
` 22 complainant's opening construction brief. I read
`
` 23 through the testimony from the complainant's expert ‐‐
`
` 24 expert witnesses, and I read through some ‐‐ a prior
`
` 25 art that related to this case.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 12
`
` 1 Q. So do you remember what prior art that was?
`
` 2 A. So I don't ‐‐ I ‐‐ I may not be able to give
`
` 3 you a full list, but many of ‐‐ much of it dealt with
`
` 4 designs for two wheel transport devices. And yeah.
`
` 5 Q. Okay. Turning to some specific ‐‐ the
`
` 6 specific terms that we've ‐‐ that are at issue in this
`
`
`
` 7 case, I'd like to start with a discussion of
`
` 8 substantially parallel, do you remember offering an
`
` 9 opinion about that?
`
` 10 A. I do remember that, yes.
`
` 11 Q. Okay. And there's also a term substantially
`
` 12 linear. Do you remember that offering an opinion on
`
` 13 that as well?
`
` 14 A. So I believe the term, if I'm correct, was
`
` 15 substantially linear lee instead of substantially
`
` 16 linear; is that right?
`
` 17 Q. Yes.
`
` 18 A. Okay.
`
` 19 Q. Now, as we go through this, do you understand
`
` 20 that your claim destruction is from the perspective of
`
` 21 someone having ordinary skill in the art. Do you
`
` 22 understand that?
`
` 23 A. I ‐‐ I do understand that, yes.
`
` 24 Q. Okay. And what does that mean to you?
`
` 25 A. So for that, again, I'd like to go back to my
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 13
`
` 1 report, just to make sure that I don't forget anything.
`
` 2 Q. Yeah.
`
` 3 A. And this is listed in Section seven of my
`
` 4 report. So I just want to just read it to you. It's
`
` 5 my understanding that my analysis of the patents in
`
`
`
` 6 suit and accused products should be done to the extent
`
` 7 possible from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
` 8 skill in the art or posita. And such a person would
`
` 9 have at least one ‐‐ at least one, a bachelor's degree
`
` 10 in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
`
` 11 computer, science, or related field, or equivalent
`
` 12 experience, and two, at least two years of experience
`
` 13 in the area of robotics or feedback control for
`
` 14 electromechanical systems. Mechanical design, dynamic
`
` 15 analysis, and/or control design for mechatronic systems
`
` 16 or the equivalent experience in one or two. And so
`
` 17 that's what I believe and that's my opinion that a
`
` 18 person of ordinary skill in the art would would have
`
` 19 for this case.
`
` 20 Q. And, you know, you use the acronym posita
`
` 21 sometimes. I might use that. Other times, I might use
`
` 22 phosita for P‐H‐O‐S‐I‐T‐A, person having ordinary skill
`
` 23 in the art. Can we agree to use those kind of
`
` 24 interchangeably today?
`
` 25 A. Yes. I ‐‐ I agree that those are
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 14
`
` 1 interchangeably used, yes.
`
` 2 Q. Okay. Can you tell me how you came up with
`
` 3 the definition that you're using for a posita here?
`
`
`
` 4 A. Yeah. So what I did, first of all, was
`
` 5 certainly read the patents and became familiar with the
`
` 6 types of technology that they are dealing with. I also
`
` 7 read through the terms ‐‐ claim terms that are of issue
`
` 8 with this. And then based on that, I made a
`
` 9 determination as to what knowledge and background would
`
` 10 be needed to render a ‐‐ or that that a person of
`
` 11 ordinary skill in the art would would need to be able
`
` 12 to understand both the technology and the term ‐‐ claim
`
` 13 terms that are of question here.
`
` 14 Q. And you said you read the report of
`
` 15 complainant's expert as well; is that correct?
`
` 16 A. I did read the report of the complainant
`
` 17 expert, yes.
`
` 18 Q. Okay. Do you see any meaningful difference
`
` 19 between your definition of a posita and the
`
` 20 complainant's experts, in this case, their definition
`
` 21 of a posita?
`
` 22 A. Yes. I ‐‐ I do see a difference. And if you
`
` 23 could bring up their definition or is it in the
`
` 24 materials that you've sent to me?
`
` 25 Q. It is in those ‐‐
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 15
`
` 1 A. I don't believe it is. But if you could
`
` 2 somehow bring up their definition, I ‐‐ I would like to
`
`
`
` 3 read it and point out a difference.
`
` 4 Q. Do that. Just give me a brief moment. Here
`
` 5 we go? Get down to the relevant section, I believe.
`
` 6 A. Okay.
`
` 7 Q. There we go.
`
` 8 A. Yes. So in the portion where it says, one,
`
` 9 two, three, at the very end of the third line, on what
`
` 10 I see on the screen right now, it says at the very ‐‐
`
` 11 beginning at the very end of that. Yeah. And at least
`
` 12 one year experience in the design or use of balanced
`
` 13 wheel transport devices. And if we look in the
`
` 14 complainants version of this, it specifies that balance
`
` 15 two wheel or balance we not balance two wheel, but
`
` 16 balance wheel transport devices could include things
`
` 17 like bicycles or unicycles or skateboards. There's the
`
` 18 word use of, so that means that anyone who has ridden a
`
` 19 bike would satisfy that requirement or anybody who has
`
` 20 ridden a skateboard or unicycle for, let's say, one
`
` 21 year would satisfy that. So that seems inappropriate,
`
` 22 for this case. It ‐‐ it doesn't seem like, you know,
`
` 23 an eight‐year‐old person who rides a bike would ‐‐
`
` 24 would qualify for that part of the definition. So I do
`
` 25 not agree with that definition there.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 16
`
`
`
` 1 Q. Okay. Do you see do you believe that this
`
` 2 would lead to a different interpretation of the patents
`
` 3 between your definition and their definition?
`
` 4 A. That, you know, if ‐‐ if a person you know,
`
` 5 just had certainly experience riding a bicycle and had
`
` 6 no familiarity with with my, you know, with the types
`
` 7 of technologies mentioned in in the definition that I
`
` 8 give, then then yeah, certainly. I mean, they may not
`
` 9 be as qualified enough. But but, you know, when it
`
` 10 says use of balance wheel transport devices, it doesn't
`
` 11 seem like a high enough bar, if you will, for a person
`
` 12 to be able to ‐‐ be able to qualify ‐‐ to be able to
`
` 13 professionally testify in this case. And like I say, a
`
` 14 child that's ridden a bike for a year would satisfy
`
` 15 that requirement. And ‐‐ and it ‐‐ it seems an ‐‐ an
`
` 16 inappropriate type of definition for ‐‐ to include that
`
` 17 type of requirement for a posita.
`
` 18 Q. You see directly before that, there's other
`
` 19 requirements, too, correct?
`
` 20 A. Yes, there are other requirements, yes.
`
` 21 Q. Okay. So with taking all of the requirements
`
` 22 that those experts have laid out, which is a bachelor's
`
` 23 degree in engineering, physics, or related field, and
`
` 24 at least two years of experience with electromechanical
`
` 25 systems, and at least one year experience in the design
`
`
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 17
`
` 1 and or use of balanced wheel transport devices. When
`
` 2 you take into fact into account all of those things, do
`
` 3 you see a difference that would lead to a, you know,
`
` 4 different interpretation of the patents at issue here?
`
` 5 A. I mean, it's impossible for me to answer that
`
` 6 question without, you know, knowing more details of the
`
` 7 background of an individual. So so I did ‐‐ I don't
`
` 8 feel that I can, you know, accurately answer that
`
` 9 question with without knowing a lot more information.
`
` 10 Yeah.
`
` 11 Q. Okay. So let's go back to your opinions in
`
` 12 this case. We were talking about substantially
`
` 13 parallel and substantial ‐‐ substantially linearly.
`
` 14 I'm going to see how many times I can get my tongue
`
` 15 tied up in that. Your opinion in this case, is that it
`
` 16 is ‐‐ those terms are indefinite; is that correct?
`
` 17 A. That is correct, yes.
`
` 18 Q. Okay. Would a phosita know what parallel is?
`
` 19 A. I believe a phosita would would know what the
`
` 20 term parallel meant, yes.
`
` 21 Q. Yeah. And I'm just obviously trying to narrow
`
` 22 down where the indefiniteness arises. Would a phosita
`
` 23 understand what linearly would mean?
`
` 24 A. I believe a phosita would would understand
`
`
`
` 25 what the term linearly means also, yes.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 18
`
` 1 Q. Okay. So the sounds like the substantially
`
` 2 part is where you believe the indefiniteness is
`
` 3 introduced; is that correct?
`
` 4 MR. WANG: Objection to the form.
`
` 5 THE WITNESS: So I ‐‐ I'm not test, you know,
`
` 6 giving an opinion on specifically the word
`
` 7 substantially, but I'm giving an opinion on
`
` 8 substantially linearly or substantially parallel.
`
` 9 BY MR. HODGES:
`
` 10 Q. Okay.
`
` 11 A. So I'm not ‐‐ I'm not giving an opinion on
`
` 12 either of the individual or on the individual words
`
` 13 substantially, no.
`
` 14 Q. Yeah. So in a ‐‐ in a real world physical
`
` 15 device, is it possible to create something that would
`
` 16 have exactly parallel wheels?
`
` 17 A. So I believe if we went down to the minutest
`
` 18 definition, that of, let's say, the width of an atom or
`
` 19 something like that, that it would be extremely
`
` 20 difficult to do that. I ‐‐ I won't say it's
`
` 21 impossible, but it ‐‐ it would be difficult to do that,
`
` 22 I would believe.
`
`
`
` 23 Q. In the real world, physical device, would it
`
` 24 be possible to create wheels that are exactly linearly
`
` 25 arranged?
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 19
`
` 1 A. I believe that there's a word there that ‐‐
`
` 2 can you define what you mean by exactly?
`
` 3 Q. Okay. Let's just take out ‐‐ take out
`
` 4 exactly. Is it ‐‐ would it be possible to have
`
` 5 something that actual device that is ‐‐ has wheels that
`
` 6 are linearly arranged?
`
` 7 A. Well, then we have to go into what degree of
`
` 8 literally we mean. So so that's yeah ‐‐ there's I
`
` 9 believe there's ambiguity even there. So I like, you
`
` 10 know, yeah, I believe that as soon as we get into a
`
` 11 degree, there's ‐‐ there's without further information,
`
` 12 such as like a boundary or an extent that there's
`
` 13 ambiguity. And then it's unclear.
`
` 14 Q. But would it be possible to create something
`
` 15 with no ‐‐ no degree of, you know, tolerance, no degree
`
` 16 of, as you just I think, put it, you know, deviation,
`
` 17 would it be possible for ‐‐ to have a physical device
`
` 18 with two wheels that are linearly arranged?
`
` 19 A. I believe that. And ‐‐ and bilinearly, do you
`
` 20 mean, like, I guess I'm ‐‐ again, I'm not sure. We
`
` 21 have to talk about degree, I think, whenever we talk
`
`
`
` 22 about the or, you know, things such as linearly. So
`
` 23 yeah. I ‐‐ I find it hard to answer that question
`
` 24 because we again, it's we have to talk about some
`
` 25 degree or boundary or something of what is meant by
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 20
`
` 1 that. And without that, I think we're ‐‐ there's ‐‐
`
` 2 there's ambiguity and unclearness.
`
` 3 Q. I mean, just a little bit ago, I asked whether
`
` 4 a phosita would understand what linearly means, and
`
` 5 your answer was yes. So with that understanding, would
`
` 6 it be possible to create a physical device in the real
`
` 7 world that has wheels that are linearly arranged with
`
` 8 that understanding that we talked about earlier?
`
` 9 A. So what I meant was in answering the previous
`
` 10 question was that a phosita would would understand
`
` 11 generally what the term linearly meant compared to
`
` 12 terms like a curve or a quadratic or perpendicular.
`
` 13 But, you know, when we talk about, is it ‐‐ are things,
`
` 14 you know, are two wheels linearly arranged, then at
`
` 15 that point, I and I think any other phosita would would
`
` 16 have to understand the degree to which the wheels are
`
` 17 or parallel.
`
` 18 Q. Yeah.
`
` 19 A. Or line or lineally arranged or, you know,
`
`
`
` 20 whatever you ‐‐ yeah.
`
` 21 Q. Okay. And in your prior work, have you ever
`
` 22 encountered or opined on patent claims that have words
`
` 23 of degree, like, substantially or any other words like
`
` 24 that in them?
`
` 25 A. I don't recall that. No. I don't ‐‐ I don't
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 21
`
` 1 recall testifying previously about that.
`
` 2 Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge about where
`
` 3 courts have allowed or not allowed similar claim terms?
`
` 4 A. I've read in ‐‐ there was some discussion of
`
` 5 it in both the complainants and respondents opening ‐‐
`
` 6 opening remarks or briefs or opening claim construction
`
` 7 brief, I guess, would be the correct title for the
`
` 8 documents.
`
` 9 Q. Other than that, any awareness or experience
`
` 10 with those types of decisions or terms before?
`
` 11 A. Not from a legal standpoint. I don't recall
`
` 12 any.
`
` 13 Q. Okay. I'm going to share screen again for
`
` 14 what's going to be the third exhibit we use today,
`
` 15 however Bill wants to try to label these things that
`
` 16 all have their own labels on.
`
` 17 THE REPORTER: Yeah, we'll label them one,
`
` 18 two, three, four, five. So this will be three.
`
`
`
` 19 BY MR. HODGES:
`
` 20 Q. Okay. So this thing that on the screen that
`
` 21 says Exhibit 2, that is actually Exhibit 3, do you see
`
` 22 that, Dr. Hartup?
`
` 23 A. What I'm seeing is an e‐mail.
`
` 24 Q. No.
`
` 25 A. At least it looks or maybe ‐‐
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 22
`
` 1 Q. I get.
`
` 2 A. Okay.
`
` 3 Q. Went to the wrong screen.
`
` 4 A. Okay.
`
` 5 Q. Better?
`
` 6 A. Yeah. I now ‐‐ now what I see is an Exhibit
`
` 7 2. Thank you. Yes.
`
` 8 Q. So this is the 608 patent that you opined
`
` 9 upon; is that correct?
`
` 10 A. That that looks like it it it is, yes. Looks
`
` 11 like the 608 patent.
`
` 12 Q. This was attached to your report earlier, I
`
` 13 believe.
`
` 14 A. Okay.
`
` 15 Q. Scroll down here. Let's put up a picture
`
` 16 here. Do you see the image on the screen right now?
`
`
`
` 17 A. I do see the image, yes.
`
` 18 Q. Okay. And I think this was ‐‐ this is labeled
`
` 19 as ‐‐ had to zoom too far out ‐‐ Figure 1 of the 608
`
` 20 patent; is that correct?
`
` 21 A. Yeah. I see up to the upper left, it's ‐‐
`
` 22 looks like it says Figure 1.
`
` 23 Q. Yeah. It's ‐‐ it's faint. That's why I tried
`
` 24 to zoom back in a little bit more to make life easier
`
` 25 for everybody.
`
`
` UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
` 23
`
` 1 A. Thank you.
`
` 2 Q. Did you review this when ‐‐ did you review the
`
` 3 figure ‐‐ this figure and the other figures when you
`
` 4 were creating your opinions in this case?
`
` 5 A. Yes. I reviewed ‐‐ did review this and the
`
` 6 other figures.
`
` 7 Q. Looking at this, the ‐‐ would it be your
`
` 8 opinion that the wheels that are shown, wh
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
