`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ______________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ______________________________________
`
` INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ETHICON LLC
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ______________________________________
`
` Case IPR 2019-00880
`
` U.S. Patent 7,490,749 B2
` ______________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
`
` Friday, December 13, 2019
`
` Reported by:
`
` Amanda Blomstrom, CSR/CRR/RMR/CLR
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.001
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 2
`
` The deposition of BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.,
`
` was convened on Friday, December 13, 2019,
`
` from 9:04 a.m. to 10:43 a.m., at the offices of
`
` Fish & Richardson, 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000,
`
` Dallas, Texas 75201, before Amanda Blomstrom,
`
` Registered Merit Reporter, Certified LiveNote
`
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the states
`
` of Texas, California, and Illinois.
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.002
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` For Intuitive Surgical, Inc.:
`
` WILL FREEMAN, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20024
` 202.783.5070
` will.freeman@fr.com
` -and-
` KENNETH W. DARBY, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810
` Austin, Texas 78701
` 512.226.8126
` kdarby@fr.com
`
` For Ethicon LLC:
`
` CHRISTOPHER PEPE, ESQUIRE
` KATHRYN M. KANTHA, ESQUIRE
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
` 2001 M Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` 202.682.7153
` christopher.pepe@weil.com
` kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.003
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
` Examination by Mr. Pepe................. 5
` Examination by Mr. Freeman.............. 62
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NO. DESCRIPTION REFERRED TO
`
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749 6
`
` Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Bryan Knodel 6
`
` Exhibit 1004 United States Patent Application (attached)
` Publication No. US2006/0175375
`
` Exhibit 1005 United States Patent Application 38
` Publication No. US2005/0178813
`
` Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,941,442 37
`
` *****
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.004
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.,
`
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Knodel.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Now, you understand you're here today for
`
` a deposition for an IPR for U.S. Patent 7,490,749?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm just going to hand you a
`
` couple of documents before we get going.
`
` The first one is your Declaration. Just
`
` flip through it; make sure everything's there.
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Chris, should we do
`
` introductions for the record?
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?
`
` MR. FREEMAN: I said, should we do
`
` introductions for the record?
`
` MR. PEPE: If you want some introductions,
`
` we can do introductions.
`
` THE REPORTER: It's not necessary.
`
` MR. PEPE: If it makes you more
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.005
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` comfortable, I'm Chris Pepe for patent owner Ethicon,
`
` and with me is Katie Kantha. We are both from the
`
` law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
`
` MR. FREEMAN: And I'm Will Freeman, with
`
` Fish & Richardson, on behalf of Petitioner, and with
`
` me is Kenneth Darby of Fish & Richardson. I am in
`
` Washington, D.C., and Kenneth is in Austin, Texas.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm Dr. Knodel.
`
` Everything looks good on this.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. It's all there? All right.
`
` A. I think so.
`
` Q. And we're also going to give you a copy of
`
` what's been marked as Exhibit -- well, before I get
`
` into this.
`
` Your Declaration is marked as IS 1003.
`
` You see that? And what I've just handed you is
`
` Exhibit IS 1001, which is U.S. Patent
`
` No. 7,490,749.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Can you take a look through the '7 -- and
`
` I will be referring to that as the '749 patent today,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.006
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` if you're okay with that. Just flip through it; make
`
` sure it looks like it's a complete copy of the '749
`
` patent.
`
` A. Okay. It's good.
`
` Q. All right. Now, Dr. Knodel, at this
`
` point, you have submitted a number of Declarations on
`
` behalf of Intuitive Surgical in IPR proceedings,
`
` right?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Do you recall how many Declarations you
`
` have submitted at this point?
`
` A. I don't recall the exact number, but
`
` eight?
`
` Q. Okay. When did you first begin consulting
`
` for Fish & Richardson with respect to these IPR
`
` proceedings?
`
` A. Gosh, how long ago was it? I don't recall
`
` the exact time frame. Probably say it might have
`
` been a year and a half ago.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Not sure.
`
` Q. Now, do you -- can you recall how much
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.007
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you've been compensated over that period with respect
`
` to these IPR proceedings?
`
` A. I -- I don't recall.
`
` Q. Now, aside from the legal consulting that
`
` you are currently doing for Fish & Richardson on
`
` behalf of Intuitive Surgical, are you currently doing
`
` any other consulting work for Intuitive Surgical?
`
` A. No, I am not.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you done any other consulting
`
` work for Intuitive Surgical outside of the legal
`
` context since you began consulting on these IPRs?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. So I'd like to ask you some questions
`
` about your prior work experience and design
`
` experience.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Now, I believe in prior proceedings,
`
` you've testified that you have experience designing
`
` surgical staplers, right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you worked on the design of surgical
`
` staplers while working at Ethicon, right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.008
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. And what was the time frame in
`
` which you were designing surgical staplers for
`
` Ethicon?
`
` A. 1992 through the end of 1997.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. Can you recall, you
`
` know, what commercial products you were -- you were
`
` part of the design team for while working at Ethicon?
`
` A. The EZ 35, the EZ 45, the ETS 35, ETS 45,
`
` and I did the design, that -- that platform that did
`
` the 35 and 45 also included a 60; although, I didn't
`
` launch the 60 before I left.
`
` Q. Okay. So just to be clear. So there was
`
` an EZ 35 and an EZ 45?
`
` A. Um-hmm.
`
` Q. All right. There is an ETS 45 and an
`
` ATS 45?
`
` A. Oh, there's a -- that's a good point.
`
` There is an ETS 35, an ETS 45, an ETS 60 that was
`
` designed and an ATS 35 and 45.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I forgot about the ATSs. Thank you.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.009
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. And so those were the only -- those
`
` were the commercial products you worked on while at
`
` Ethicon, right?
`
` A. Those are the commercial products -- well,
`
` there's the reload units as well that go with those,
`
` you know, white, blue, green cartridges, et cetera.
`
` And then, of course, I also was, being in that
`
` department, doing technical design reviews and
`
` participating on other products: clip appliers,
`
` CCube devices, you know, cut/coag, that kind of
`
` thing, but ...
`
` Q. Okay. So other surgical devices, not
`
` necessarily --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- surgical staplers?
`
` A. My -- yeah, my main area of focus at
`
` Ethicon was surgical staplers.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. But as a principal engineer in the
`
` department, I was drawn into all kinds of other,
`
` especially on the IP side. At the time that I left
`
` and for the 11 years that followed, I was the most
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.010
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` prolific inventor in the company's history.
`
` Q. Okay. Since you've left Ethicon, have you
`
` worked on the design of surgical staplers?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Okay. In what context was that?
`
` A. As a consultant.
`
` Q. Okay. I mean, are there any commercial
`
` products you can tell me that you worked on the
`
` design of?
`
` A. Not that I can tell you that I have worked
`
` on the design of, no.
`
` Q. Okay. So there are some products; you
`
` can't -- you're not at liberty --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- to say what those are?
`
` Okay. So why don't we stick with the --
`
` the products you worked on at Ethicon.
`
` A. Perfect.
`
` Q. Now, with respect to the -- why don't we
`
` start with the EZ 35 and EZ 45, okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Were those a -- were those surgical
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.011
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` stapling device that both cut and stapled tissue?
`
` A. They did.
`
` Q. Was there a mechanism in them, in those
`
` devices, that transversed through the jaws to
`
` effectuate stapling and cutting?
`
` A. Yes, they -- yeah, they deployed staples,
`
` multiple rows on either side of a transecting cut
`
` line that severed the tissue.
`
` Q. Okay. And what exactly was the structure
`
` of the mechanism that would -- would do that?
`
` A. In the EZ 35, the wedge is a knife where
`
` part of the instrument, the cartridge was kind of a
`
` bare-bones cartridge, in other words, it had the
`
` body, the drivers, the staples, a pan underneath of
`
` it to keep the drivers from falling out, and a
`
` lockout.
`
` Q. Okay. Did the EZ 35 or EZ 45 include --
`
` well, let me -- let me take a step back.
`
` Do -- are you familiar with the -- the
`
` term "I-beam"?
`
` A. Yes, I am.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the term
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.012
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` "E-beam"?
`
` A. I am.
`
` Q. Okay. Did the EZ 35 or EZ 45 have either
`
` an I-beam or an E-beam?
`
` A. They did not.
`
` Q. Okay. So once the device was fired in the
`
` EZ 35 and EZ 45, how was the sled and knife -- well,
`
` let me take a step back.
`
` After the device was fired, was the sled
`
` and knife retracted back to the proximal end of the
`
` jaws?
`
` A. So there's no sled in an EZ 35 or 45.
`
` There -- a sled is a -- is a component that has the
`
` wedge features on it that's independent, that you
`
` could push and leave, or the, in the case of -- in
`
` the case of EZ 35 or 45, the wedges are part of the
`
` device. So there -- it's not a separate component.
`
` So it's just not normally called a -- a "sled." Sled
`
` was the term used for an independent component that
`
` you just pushed, you actually never pulled back.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'll try to use your
`
` terminology.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.013
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` So the --
`
` A. Sorry.
`
` Q. -- the wedges and the knife in the EZ 35
`
` and EZ 45 --
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. -- those were traversed through the
`
` jaws --
`
` A. Yes, they did.
`
` Q. -- to cut and staple?
`
` After that process was complete, were the
`
` wedge and the knife retracted?
`
` A. They were.
`
` Q. Okay. And what mechanism performed that
`
` retraction?
`
` A. A spring.
`
` Q. A spring. Okay.
`
` So and did the spring automatically
`
` perform that retraction?
`
` A. Yeah, so it was a single pump firing
`
` trigger. You pulled it to fire. When you let it go,
`
` the spring returned.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.014
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. So it was direct drive, direct linkage.
`
` Q. Okay. So the user didn't have to perform
`
` any manual actuation in that --
`
` A. No manual actuation --
`
` Q. -- device to retract --
`
` A. -- no.
`
` Q. Okay. And when was that device, the EZ 35
`
` and EZ 45, you know, first available on the market?
`
` A. Early, I'd say, '94 maybe.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you know when it went off the
`
` market?
`
` A. I think that -- well, the 45 stayed on for
`
` a really long time. The 35 overlapped a little bit
`
` to the ETS 35, but then it, then it went off. So --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- I don't know the exact dates.
`
` Q. Okay. Now let's talk about the ETS 35 and
`
` 45.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Now, did those devices have the same
`
` general structure and functionality?
`
` A. Yeah. They -- the big change at the
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.015
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` ETS -- yes, but the big change with the ETS was, we
`
` went to the trans -- that was the point at which I
`
` invented the translating anvil. That's the kidney-
`
` shaped slides that you see in the channel, and the
`
` pivot on the anvil, that it arcs forward as it
`
` closes. You know what I'm speaking of?
`
` Q. Yes, yes.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. That, that entire mechanism, was done
`
` because there was concern that U.S. Surgical was
`
` going to be able to enforce a patent on what's called
`
` a closure tube, where you just advance the closure
`
` tube and all the anvil did was pivot. And so we were
`
` requested to redesign the -- the endoscopic stapling
`
` devices to get rid of cam tube closing just in case
`
` U.S. Surgical was able to successfully argue that we
`
` had infringed them. So we moved the entire
`
` architecture to that, what was called then the
`
` "translating anvil." It -- because it moves slightly
`
` distal as it closes, translates distal, but it was a
`
` very effective way to get around the IP that U.S.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.016
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Surgical had.
`
` Q. Okay. So just to be clear.
`
` Are you -- is that explaining the -- the
`
` difference between the ETS device and the EZ device?
`
` A. Yep. That's --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. That was one of -- that was one of the
`
` core reasons why we moved away from the EZ platform
`
` to the ETS platform, was the redesign of the closing
`
` mechanism at the distal head of the device.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. So in the ETS 35 and
`
` 45, did the device also include a wedge and knife
`
` that traversed distally through the jaws to effect
`
` stapling and cutting of tissue?
`
` A. It did.
`
` Q. Okay. After the stapling and cutting of
`
` tissue -- strike that.
`
` After the stapling and cutting of tissue,
`
` were the wedge and cutting instrument retracted?
`
` A. They were.
`
` Q. Okay. And what mechanism performed the
`
` retraction?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.017
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. A spring.
`
` Q. Okay. So the in ETS 35 and 45, again, the
`
` user did not perform any manual actuation to retract
`
` the wedge and knife?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Okay. And I'm, just -- just to
`
` round out on the design of the ETS device. The ETS
`
` 35 and 45 did not include an I-beam or an E-beam,
`
` correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. And that's actually the primary reason why
`
` you could use a spring return, because in the case of
`
` the architecture of an EZ or an ETS, if the knife or
`
` wedge somehow became jammed and -- and locked
`
` forward, it had no impact on being able to unclamp
`
` the device; whereas, once the architecture went to
`
` the E-beams, I-beams, that was no longer true. Now
`
` it became mandatory that you retract that in all
`
` cases; regardless of the thickness of the tissue,
`
` regardless of any malfunction. Because if you didn't
`
` pull back the E-beam or the I-beam, the device was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.018
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` locked on tissue and you would have to cut it out of
`
` the patient.
`
` So spring returns were very common before
`
` E-beams and I-beams because the risk to the patient
`
` of any malfunction was negligible. You could -- you
`
` could literally unclamp it, bring it right out of the
`
` thing, right out of the patient with no consequence
`
` whatsoever. So spring returns were very common. The
`
` only -- when we get to other return mechanisms, they
`
` arise in conjunction with E-beams and I-beams --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- because of the risk associated with
`
` malfunctioning.
`
` Q. Well, thank you for that response. It
`
` wasn't really responsive to my question. So I'm
`
` going to move to strike that.
`
` But we'll --
`
` A. I -- okay.
`
` Q. -- continue.
`
` Okay. So after leaving Ethicon -- while
`
` you worked at Ethicon, you did not work on the design
`
` of instruments with an I-beam or an E-beam, right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.019
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Well, the E -- I-beam -- so while I was at
`
` Ethicon, U.S. Surgical had come out with an I-beam;
`
` so we were looking at I-beams. We were discussing
`
` I-beams; talking about I-beams, the advantages and
`
` disadvantages; and looking at them. I did not launch
`
` a product with an E-beam or I-beam. As a matter of
`
` fact, I don't think Ethicon launched a product,
`
` another stapler after I left for about a decade. And
`
` then -- and then they came out with E-beams and
`
` I-beams.
`
` There was a lot of -- it took -- it took a
`
` while for the organization to make that shift. But
`
` it was definitely on the radar while I was there. It
`
` was just starting to -- the company was looking at
`
` how we were going to -- what we were going to do to
`
` respond to U.S. Surgical's move to go to an I-beam.
`
` Q. But you didn't work on the design of a
`
` product that Ethicon commercialized that --
`
` A. That's correct --
`
` Q. -- included an I-beam or an E-beam, right?
`
` A. -- nothing that I looked at. It was all
`
` just conceptual when I did it.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.020
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. And I'll just ask, I know -- make
`
` sure -- we didn't go over the ground rules. Maybe
`
` I'll just, I'll do a little refresher now --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. -- just because, you know, we've done this
`
` a number of times; so I thought maybe we didn't need
`
` to do that.
`
` A. Oh.
`
` Q. You know, the court reporter is writing
`
` everything down; so it's important that we don't talk
`
` over each other. You know, that being said, do your
`
` best, until I'm finished, and then I'm going to wait
`
` until you finish, and then I will ask my next
`
` question.
`
` You know, again, we will take breaks every
`
` hour.
`
` You know, otherwise, do you feel like you
`
` need any refresher on how the process is going to
`
` work?
`
` A. I think I'm okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` All right. Dr. Knodel, why don't we take
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.021
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` out your Declaration. I have a few questions for you
`
` about that.
`
` All right. And if you could turn to
`
` Paragraph 43 of your Declaration. I just want to get
`
` your -- get some clarification on a few of the
`
` statements you've made in your -- your claim
`
` construction analysis. So you can go ahead and --
`
` and review Paragraphs 43 through 45 if you want to
`
` take a minute.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. All set.
`
` So, in Paragraph 44, you know, you have
`
` proposed a construction for retraction assembly, and
`
` you've stated that the -- the claimed functions of
`
` the retraction assembly are retracting and
`
` interfacing.
`
` Do you see that at the top of Paragraph
`
` 44?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. What exactly does "interfacing"
`
` mean in the context of being a function?
`
` A. That an interface, as a function, would be
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.022
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` two things interacting. It's -- and it's a
`
` very generic word; so I don't -- I think
`
` "interfacing" could be -- mean a lot of things. I
`
` don't know that I'm trying to define it. I'm just
`
` saying that it doesn't -- it doesn't tell me what the
`
` structure is. It's just an interface, which could
`
` mean a wide variety of things.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, that's -- what I'm trying to
`
` understand is: Are you -- you stated that this is a
`
` function. So I'm trying to understand --
`
` A. Yeah, it's some --
`
` Q. -- how you assess what --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Again, remember, let -- let me finish, and
`
` then -- because she might walk out before the day is
`
` over if we don't take turns.
`
` Right, so, you know, you've stated that
`
` interfacing is a function, and I'm trying to
`
` understand what are the contours of when two
`
` components interface with each other, if that is a
`
` function.
`
` A. Yeah, it's a function in that the claim
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.023
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` states that it, that the assemblies -- that the
`
` functions -- that what the assembly does is retract
`
` and interface.
`
` Q. Okay. So is -- would your opinion be that
`
` something, two components interface merely if they're
`
` coupled to each other?
`
` A. I -- I didn't formulate opinion on what
`
` possible -- what "interfacing" could possibly then
`
` mean. But it -- all I know is that, from the claim,
`
` that it says that it "interfaces."
`
` Q. Okay. Well --
`
` A. It could mean a wide variety of things.
`
` Q. -- would two components that are merely
`
` coupled to each other interface with each other?
`
` A. That is probably one sort of definition,
`
` if you will, of "interfacing."
`
` Q. Okay. So, you know, the mere fact that
`
` two components -- strike that.
`
` Okay. So really all that would need to
`
` occur is for two components to be connected to each
`
` other and that constitutes "interfacing"?
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Objection --
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.024
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: Well --
`
` MR. FREEMAN: -- misstates prior
`
` testimony.
`
` THE WITNESS: I -- I do not even think it
`
` would even be required that they connect. They --
`
` they could just touch. They could -- they could --
`
` yeah, I think "interface" is just such a broad term
`
` that I don't -- I don't think I would say that they
`
` have to connect.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. Okay. So two components that touch each
`
` other, that meets the interfacing?
`
` A. I --
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Objection; misstates prior
`
` testimony.
`
` Just give me a quick second after he asks
`
` the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: As an example -- I'm not
`
` saying that that is -- would always be an interface,
`
` but that's a possible interface is that they touch.
`
` It's a possible interface that they couple. It's a
`
` possible interface that they -- that they send a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.025
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` signal from one to another and don't touch. I mean,
`
` "interface" -- my computer is interfacing with the
`
` Internet. There's no con- -- there's no physical
`
` touching. "Interface" is a broad term, is what I'm
`
` saying. But a functional term.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. All right. Can we go to, it's Paragraph
`
` 46 of your Declaration.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. And so you provided a -- a
`
` construction of "firing drive" in Paragraphs 46
`
` through 48, right?
`
` A. Yes. In the -- in the absence of -- as I
`
` mentioned at the beginning of this section, when the
`
` claim terms fail to recite sufficient structure,
`
` Counsel has informed me that I need to look to the
`
` specification. And this means plus function analysis
`
` to find the function.
`
` So, yes, in -- in Paragraphs 46 through
`
` 48, I've looked at the claim words, found them to
`
` lack structure, and went ahead into the
`
` specification, and identified a structure for those.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.026
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. All right. And, again, in
`
` Paragraph 47, you've identified the functions of the
`
` firing drive are, as -- one of them as being
`
` "firing."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do see that.
`
` Q. Okay. What do you mean by "firing" there?
`
` A. When I look -- so firing, the -- the term
`
` "firing" itself is -- is not clear in the claim, if
`
` you just read the claim. I don't know what it means
`
` by "firing." In the context of the specification,
`
` "firing" seems to mean the transection of the tissue
`
` and the forming of the stapling -- staples.
`
` Q. Okay. But the drive isn't actually
`
` performing that function, right?
`
` A. The drive enables firing.
`
` Q. Okay. So it enables it, but it's not
`
` actually the structure that performs the function --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- correct?
`
` A. You're right. Right.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.027
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Okay. Can you go to Paragraph 63 of your
`
` Declaration.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And so at the top of Paragraph
`
` 63, you state "I have been informed by Counsel for
`
` Intuitive that the patent owner has alleged a
`
` surgical stapling and severing instrument including
`
` both primary retraction assembly and a manual back-up
`
` retraction assembly is within the scope of the '749
`
` Patent's claims."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. After that, you state "I have no
`
` direct knowledge of