throbber
Page 1
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
` PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _________________________
`
`AXONICS, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
` _________________________
` IPR2020-00680 (Patent 8,457,758 B2)
` IPR2020-00712 (Patent 8,738,148 B2)ยน
` _________________________
` VIDEOCONFERENCE DEPOSITION OF
` RICHARD T. MIHRAN, PH.D.
`
` Taken on Behalf of the Petitioner
`
` DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, November 14, 2023
` TIME: 10:04 a.m. to 3:35 p.m.
` PLACE: Remote via Zoom
` Taken before Darline Marie West, RPR, FPR,
`FPR-C, and Notary Public, in and for the State of
`Florida-at-Large, pursuant to Notice of Taking
`Deposition filed in the above cause.
` MAGNA LITIGATION SERVICES
` www.MagnaLS.com
` 866.621.6224
`
`Axonics Exhibit 1020
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
`IPR2020-00712
`
`Page 1 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 2
`APPEARANCES: (All persons appearing via Zoom.)
`On behalf of the Petitioner:
` TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP
` 8260 Greensboro Drive, Suite 260
` McLean, Virginia 22102
` Phone: 703.940.5033
` Email:
` Samantha.jameson@tensegritylawgroup.com
` Aaron.nathan@tensegritylawgroup.com
` By: SAMANTHA A. JAMESON, ESQ.
` AARON NATHAN, ESQ.
`
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` PAUL HASTINGS LLP
` 600 Travis Street 58th Floor
` Houston, Texas 77002
` Phone: 713.860.7353
` Email: Paulanderson@paulhastings.com
` By: PAUL ANDERSON, ESQ.
` QUADEER A. AHMED, ESQ.
` (Washington D.C. office)
`
` - - -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 230
`
`

`

` I N D E X
`WITNESS: PAGE:
`RICHARD T. MIHRAN, Ph.D.
`DIRECT EXAMINATION 5
`BY MS. JAMESON:
`
`Page 3
`
` - - -
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` - - -
`
` Description Page
`Mihran Deposition Dr. Mihran's Rebuttal 20
`Exhibit 1 Declaration for '758
`
`Mihran Deposition Dr. Mihran's Rebuttal 20
`Exhibit 2 Declaration for '148
`Richard Mihran, Ph.D. Schulman reference, 22
`Deposition Exhibit 3 Patent 3,942,535
`
`Richard Mihran, Ph.D. Highly Confidential - 113
`Deposition Exhibit 4 For Attorneys' Eyes
` Only - Source Code -
` Supplemental Expert
` Report of Dr. Richard
` T. Mihran, December
` 22, 2022
`
`Mihran Deposition Highly Confidential - 115
`Exhibit 5 For Attorneys' Eyes
` Only - Excerpt of Dr.
` Mirhan's report from
` the district court
` litigation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 4
`Richard Mihran, Ph.D. Highly Confidential - 118
`Deposition Exhibit 6 For Attorneys' Eyes
` Only - Excerpt of Dr.
` Mihran's Supplemental
` Expert Report from
` the district court
` case
`
` - - -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`56
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` - - -
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Mihran, raise
`
` your right hand, please.
`
` Do you swear or affirm to tell the
`
` truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
`
` truth?
`
` THE WITNESS: I do.
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. 00:00:26
`
` Ms. Jameson. 00:00:28
`
`THEREUPON, 00:00:28
`
` RICHARD T. MIHRAN, Ph.D., 00:00:28
`
`called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner 00:00:28
`
`herein, having been remotely first duly sworn, was 00:00:28
`
`examined and testified as follows: 00:00:28
`
` DIRECT EXAMINATION 00:00:28
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:00:28
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Mihran. 00:00:32
`
` A. Good morning. 00:00:35
`
` Q. Could you please state your full name for 00:00:36
`
`the record. 00:00:38
`
` A. Richard Theodore Mihran. 00:00:38
`
` Q. And where are you testifying from today? 00:00:43
`
` A. I'm testifying from my second home in 00:00:45
`
`Destin, Florida. 00:00:49
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 5 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 6
` Q. And is there anyone in the room with you 00:00:51
`
`today? 00:00:53
`
` A. No. 00:00:55
`
` Q. How much time did you spend preparing for 00:00:57
`
`your deposition between October 31st and today? 00:01:06
`
` A. My recollection is that October 31st 00:01:13
`
`corresponds to the date of the submission of the 00:01:16
`
`rebuttal declarations; is that correct? 00:01:19
`
` Q. That is -- that is correct. And I can show 00:01:21
`
`you those declarations. 00:01:27
`
` A. No. That's -- that's fine. 00:01:29
`
` I believe I had perhaps a couple of calls 00:01:33
`
`with the attorneys in the week following, and a 00:01:37
`
`meeting yesterday as well. Those probably totaled 00:01:48
`
`between six and eight hours, something on that order. 00:01:58
`
`And of course, I also spent some time reviewing the 00:02:03
`
`documents, but much of that had already been done as 00:02:08
`
`part of my preparation of the rebuttal declarations 00:02:12
`
`themselves. 00:02:15
`
` Q. And who was in the -- in the meetings or on 00:02:16
`
`the calls that you had with the attorneys? 00:02:22
`
` A. I believe the -- the calls last week were 00:02:25
`
`with Mr. Anderson, Paul Anderson, and the call this 00:02:28
`
`week were both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ahmed. 00:02:36
`
` Q. And Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ahmed are both 00:02:41
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 7
`virtually in the deposition today, correct? 00:02:46
`
` A. That's correct. Yes. 00:02:48
`
` MS. JAMESON: And also just note for 00:02:50
`
` the record that -- that Aaron Nathan of 00:02:51
`
` Tensegrity also representing Axonics is in 00:02:55
`
` the deposition as well. 00:02:59
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:02:59
`
` Q. What materials did you review as you were 00:03:04
`
`preparing for your deposition today? 00:03:07
`
` A. Well, primarily the rebuttal declarations 00:03:12
`
`themselves that -- that I had submitted, as well as 00:03:17
`
`portions of Dr. Panescu's supplemental declarations 00:03:20
`
`that I was addressing in my declarations, my recent 00:03:27
`
`declarations, and the prior art referenced that I 00:03:32
`
`addressed, which is the Schulman '535 patent as well 00:03:41
`
`as the Fischell article. 00:03:45
`
` Q. All right. And before we get much further 00:04:10
`
`into it, I'll just go through some just preliminary 00:04:12
`
`matters. 00:04:16
`
` And I want to confirm that there's nothing 00:04:16
`
`that's gonna prevent you from giving complete and 00:04:18
`
`accurate testimony today? 00:04:22
`
` A. Okay. 00:04:23
`
` Q. That's a confirmation that there's nothing 00:04:27
`
`preventing you from giving complete and accurate 00:04:33
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 8
`testimony? 00:04:35
`
` A. That's correct. There is nothing that will 00:04:38
`
`prevent that. 00:04:39
`
` Q. And you understand that you're testifying 00:04:40
`
`under oath? 00:04:41
`
` A. Yes. 00:04:42
`
` Q. And you're testifying as if you were 00:04:42
`
`testifying before the judges of the PTAB today? 00:04:46
`
` A. That's my understanding, yes. 00:04:48
`
` Q. And so you're gonna need to give answers 00:04:51
`
`that are verbal and oral. That means no nods, no 00:04:52
`
`gestures, no sounds that are not words. 00:04:56
`
` Do you understand that? 00:04:58
`
` A. I do. 00:05:00
`
` Q. And if you answer my questions, I'm going 00:05:00
`
`to assume that you understood them. 00:05:02
`
` A. I understand that as well. 00:05:04
`
` Q. If we -- and we're gonna take breaks 00:05:06
`
`periodically, but if there's a question pending, I'm 00:05:10
`
`gonna ask you to answer it before we take a break. 00:05:13
`
` A. I understand that. 00:05:15
`
` Q. Okay. And I understand that you offered 00:05:16
`
`opinions in the district court on behalf of Medtronic 00:05:19
`
`as well; is that correct? 00:05:25
`
` A. In the related litigation, that is correct, 00:05:27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 8 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 9
`yes. 00:05:29
`
` Q. And that related litigation relates to the 00:05:30
`
`'756 and the '148 patent? 00:05:34
`
` A. Did you say '756 -- 5-6? 00:05:46
`
` Q. '758. 00:05:53
`
` A. '758, that's correct. '758 and '148. 00:05:55
`
` Q. Were there some materials that you have 00:05:57
`
`with you that you are looking at? 00:05:59
`
` A. I have hard copies of the patents and my 00:06:00
`
`declarations. And I'm happy to just kind of review 00:06:08
`
`with you what those are now or whenever you would 00:06:11
`
`like me to. 00:06:14
`
` Q. Let's do that now. 00:06:15
`
` Can you just identify what the materials 00:06:17
`
`are that you have with you in hard copy? 00:06:19
`
` A. Yes. And I will just state that all of 00:06:22
`
`these are unmarked copies, clean copies. They have 00:06:25
`
`no notes or markings of any kind. So I have my 00:06:29
`
`rebuttal declaration for the '758, my rebuttal 00:06:33
`
`declaration for the '148 patent. I also have my 00:06:37
`
`original opening declaration for the '758 and the 00:06:46
`
`'148. I have the Schulman '535 prior art reference 00:06:51
`
`that I address in my -- 00:06:51
`
` (Reporter clarification.) 00:06:51
`
` THE WITNESS: The word is Schulman. 00:06:51
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 9 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 10
` S-C-H-U-L-M-A-N. 00:06:51
`
` Schulman '535 patent, which is one of 00:07:14
`
` the prior art references that I address in 00:07:15
`
` my rebuttal declarations. I have the 00:07:17
`
` Fischell article, which is the second prior 00:07:25
`
` art reference I address in my rebuttal 00:07:30
`
` declaration. I have a copy of the '758 00:07:33
`
` patent itself, a copy of the '148 patent 00:07:37
`
` itself, and then I have Dr. Panescu's -- 00:07:43
`
` what I'm referring to as supplemental 00:07:50
`
` declarations that he submitted for the '758 00:07:52
`
` and '148 that I respond to in my rebuttal 00:07:58
`
` declarations. And that's everything I have. 00:08:02
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:08:05
`
` Q. And all of the declarations that you're 00:08:05
`
`referring to, both of yours and Dr. Panescu's, those 00:08:09
`
`are all from the IPR proceedings that you are 00:08:15
`
`testifying in today, correct? 00:08:18
`
` A. Yes, that is correct. 00:08:21
`
` Q. In district court in the related 00:08:25
`
`proceedings, you offered opinions on infringement of 00:08:30
`
`the '758 and '148 patents, correct? 00:08:37
`
` A. That's correct, yes. 00:08:39
`
` Q. Did you review those opinions in preparing 00:08:40
`
`your supplemental declarations that were served on 00:08:43
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 11
`October 31st? 00:08:47
`
` A. No. I'm aware of those opinions and the -- 00:08:49
`
`the bases of those opinions. 00:08:52
`
` Q. When was the last time you reviewed those 00:08:57
`
`opinions? 00:09:00
`
` A. Oh, I think at some point, there was an 00:09:04
`
`expectation that the trial in the district court 00:09:09
`
`matter would go forward in -- in August of this year, 00:09:13
`
`and certainly I was reviewing materials, including 00:09:18
`
`that report, in advance of that. And I don't recall 00:09:23
`
`the exact dates when the stay was issued, but it 00:09:35
`
`would have been in that timeframe. 00:09:38
`
` Q. When did you prepare your opinions in your 00:09:41
`
`supplemental declaration? 00:09:49
`
` A. So when you refer to "supplemental 00:09:55
`
`declaration," you're referring to what I believe is 00:09:57
`
`titled the "Rebuttal Declaration," the recent 00:10:02
`
`submissions? 00:10:06
`
` Q. The -- the rebuttal declarations that were 00:10:08
`
`filed on October 1st. 00:10:13
`
` A. So, I'm sorry. Your question was what 00:10:15
`
`again? Could you please repeat it? 00:10:17
`
` Q. When did you prepare your opinions in your 00:10:19
`
`rebuttal declarations? 00:10:21
`
` A. Well, this was, of course, a process that 00:10:28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 12
`began after I was informed of the three-man decision 00:10:31
`
`to consider the opinions that Dr. Panescu had put 00:10:43
`
`forth in his supplemental declarations. So I would 00:10:48
`
`believe this probably would have begun in the 00:10:53
`
`September timeframe, sometime after that remand issue 00:10:59
`
`was issued. So it would have been the September, 00:11:09
`
`October timeframe, prior to the submission of those 00:11:11
`
`rebuttal declarations. 00:11:14
`
` Q. Did you review your district court opinions 00:11:24
`
`in preparation for testifying today? 00:11:26
`
` A. No. As I said, I'm familiar with the sort 00:11:31
`
`of general opinions and the relevant values and 00:11:33
`
`physical sort of the parameters and things that I 00:11:45
`
`addressed in that litigation. And those opinions are 00:11:51
`
`directed to a very specific current-day product, the 00:11:55
`
`Axonics system. And so it wasn't really necessary or 00:11:59
`
`relevant to my opinions as to what is disclosed in 00:12:05
`
`Schulman and Fischell prior art references. 00:12:11
`
` Q. And so I'm just going to caution you that 00:12:17
`
`I'm not asking questions that are going to require 00:12:19
`
`you to reveal confidential information regarding the 00:12:23
`
`Axonics products. 00:12:28
`
` A. Okay. 00:12:29
`
` Q. And I just want to warn you not to reveal 00:12:30
`
`that confidential information in this deposition 00:12:32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 13
`today. 00:12:36
`
` A. Okay. Well, to the extent that the topic 00:12:37
`
`arises, I will certainly broach it carefully and not 00:12:40
`
`reveal anything that would not be considered 00:12:49
`
`confidential. 00:12:52
`
` Q. Did you discuss your district court 00:12:59
`
`opinions with your lawyers in these IPRs? 00:13:08
`
` A. No. My understanding is that the lawyers 00:13:13
`
`on the IPRs are not participating in the district 00:13:15
`
`court litigation, and that I needed to maintain 00:13:21
`
`confidentiality effectively. 00:13:28
`
` Q. So you did not review your opinions in the 00:13:37
`
`district court case to ensure that they are 00:13:39
`
`consistent with the opinions that you're offering 00:13:42
`
`here, correct? 00:13:44
`
` A. I have no basis to believe they're not 00:13:46
`
`consistent. I believe they are consistent based on 00:13:47
`
`my recollection of those opinions. 00:13:50
`
` Q. And you didn't review any positions that 00:13:58
`
`Medtronic has taken in the district court to make 00:14:01
`
`sure they're consistent with the positions that you 00:14:04
`
`and Medtronic are taking here, correct? 00:14:07
`
` A. I didn't review, as part of this 00:14:10
`
`preparation, any Medtronic positions. I didn't feel 00:14:12
`
`they were relevant to what is or is not disclosed in 00:14:15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 13 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 14
`the Schulman and Fischell prior art references. 00:14:21
`
` Q. Did you feel that those positions were not 00:14:25
`
`relevant to what falls inside or outside of the claim 00:14:55
`
`scope? 00:14:58
`
` MR. ANDERSON: Objection. Form. 00:15:01
`
` THE WITNESS: May I hear the question 00:15:03
`
` again, please? 00:15:05
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:15:06
`
` Q. Did you feel that those positions were not 00:15:06
`
`relevant to what falls inside or outside of the claim 00:15:08
`
`scope? 00:15:11
`
` A. So certainly at the time that those 00:15:14
`
`opinions were -- were generated by me and reflected 00:15:16
`
`in my expert work, of course, I considered whether 00:15:25
`
`those opinions are -- would be consistent or within 00:15:29
`
`the claim scope. I'm not aware of and I don't 00:15:32
`
`believe there is any inconsistency between the 00:15:38
`
`application of claim scope that I understand and 00:15:43
`
`applied in my rebuttal declarations in this IPR with 00:15:48
`
`any of the positions or opinions that I set forth in 00:15:55
`
`the district court litigation. 00:16:00
`
` Q. But you didn't check, when you were 00:16:06
`
`preparing your October 31st declarations, that they 00:16:08
`
`were consistent with your opinions in the district 00:16:12
`
`court, and you didn't do anything to confirm that, 00:16:14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 14 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 15
`correct? 00:16:16
`
` A. I am very well aware -- 00:16:17
`
` MR. ANDERSON: Objection. Form. 00:16:30
`
` (A discussion was held off the record with 00:16:30
`
`the court reporter.) 00:16:30
`
` THE WITNESS: So I'm very well aware 00:16:37
`
` of, for example, the electrical parameters 00:16:39
`
` and values that I identified in the district 00:16:43
`
` court litigation as satisfying claim 00:16:48
`
` limitations, and it was not necessary for me 00:16:53
`
` to go back and review my expert report in -- 00:16:57
`
` in detail in that sense. And it's not a 00:17:02
`
` question of I don't know whether they are or 00:17:06
`
` are not consistent. I know that they are 00:17:09
`
` consistent, because I am quite familiar with 00:17:12
`
` and well aware of which types of 00:17:17
`
` measurements and values were identified in 00:17:23
`
` the district court litigation as satisfying 00:17:28
`
` the requirements of the claims and, in 00:17:31
`
` particular, the two wherein clauses of the 00:17:34
`
` claims, and they are not inconsistent with 00:17:39
`
` my opinions, as reflected in these rebuttal 00:17:41
`
` declarations submitted as part of this IPR. 00:17:46
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:17:50
`
` Q. I just want a clear record for the Board. 00:17:53
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 16
` You didn't review any of the your district 00:17:56
`
`court materials or Medtronic's to confirm that they 00:18:02
`
`are consistent with your opinions here? 00:18:04
`
` A. When you say "review," I understand that to 00:18:06
`
`mean pulling out documents and reviewing the -- the 00:18:08
`
`specific documents. I'm aware of exactly what 00:18:14
`
`parameters and what values I identified in the expert 00:18:19
`
`report as they pertain to the claims that are at 00:18:24
`
`issue in this IPR. And that specifically is directed 00:18:31
`
`to -- to inputs that are required to be provided to 00:18:40
`
`the external power source as satisfying the wherein 00:18:45
`
`limitations of the claim, the multiple input claims. 00:18:53
`
` So I reviewed it in the sense that I know 00:18:56
`
`what I said and I know what positions I took, and I 00:18:59
`
`know what value I identified, and I see no 00:19:03
`
`inconsistency at all between the approach I took in 00:19:09
`
`the district court litigation and the approach that I 00:19:14
`
`took in these rebuttal declarations that address 00:19:17
`
`prior art references. 00:19:23
`
` Q. Now, you didn't review, though, those 00:19:28
`
`district court materials for your opinions or 00:19:32
`
`Medtronic's position, correct? 00:19:37
`
` MR. ANDERSON: Objection. Form. 00:19:40
`
` THE WITNESS: Again, there's a very 00:19:44
`
` limited set of issues that are being 00:19:46
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 16 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 17
` addressed in this remand of the IPR, to my 00:19:50
`
` understanding. And my understanding is that 00:19:55
`
` it is a question of whether the Schulman 00:19:57
`
` '535 reference or the Fischell article 00:20:04
`
` disclose more than one input to the external 00:20:10
`
` power source used to vary the power during 00:20:15
`
` recharging. 00:20:19
`
` And that analysis is, frankly, quite 00:20:23
`
` simple and quite clear, because they 00:20:26
`
` don't -- they only disclose one input, which 00:20:29
`
` was my original opinion and reiterated in 00:20:32
`
` these rebuttal declarations. And the types 00:20:35
`
` of inputs that I know and knew, I identified 00:20:45
`
` in the district court litigation. 00:20:53
`
` While I won't talk about what those 00:20:58
`
` inputs are in view of your -- your caution 00:21:00
`
` to me earlier, I considered and confirmed, 00:21:02
`
` in my mind, that these were separate inputs 00:21:06
`
` to the external charger used to vary the 00:21:12
`
` power during charging. 00:21:21
`
` And so there was no inconsistency, in 00:21:25
`
` my view. And I didn't really need to 00:21:31
`
` consider it further. 00:21:36
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:21:41
`
` Q. And so what you're testifying about your 00:21:43
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 17 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 18
`knowledge of the district court case, that is all 00:21:45
`
`from memory, and you're not looking at any district 00:21:48
`
`court documents? 00:21:51
`
` A. Well, again, I'll remind you, I've been 00:21:52
`
`looking at district court documents in that 00:21:55
`
`July-August timeframe, not that long ago, when I had 00:21:58
`
`understood we would be going to trial. So I was 00:22:02
`
`quite familiar with what values I had identified in 00:22:10
`
`the implantable device that were telemetered -- 00:22:16
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Doctor. 00:22:16
`
` "That were"? 00:22:16
`
` THE WITNESS: I was saying, I believe 00:22:28
`
` what values were telemetered, 00:22:29
`
` T-E-L-E-M-E-T-E-R-E-D -- derived from 00:22:35
`
` telemetry. 00:22:42
`
` -- set to the external device and used 00:22:43
`
` to vary the -- used automatically to vary 00:22:47
`
` the -- the charging power. 00:22:57
`
` So I was not concerned and am not 00:23:05
`
` concerned with any inconsistency in those 00:23:08
`
` positions. There is none. They're fully 00:23:11
`
` consistent with the approach I have taken in 00:23:15
`
` the rebuttal declarations. 00:23:17
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:23:20
`
` Q. When you were actually doing your 00:23:20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 18 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 19
`October 31st declarations, you didn't make use of 00:23:22
`
`district court documents outside of your memory at 00:23:27
`
`the time of those documents; is that accurate or not? 00:23:30
`
` A. I didn't make use of those documents really 00:23:33
`
`in any way, because they were not relevant to what is 00:23:38
`
`or is not disclosed in prior art. 00:23:42
`
` I think your earlier question was did I 00:23:44
`
`review documents for inconsistencies. And I had no 00:23:49
`
`concern that there were inconsistencies, because I -- 00:23:53
`
`what I believe to be a clear view on what is required 00:23:58
`
`in these claim and, in particular, these two input 00:24:10
`
`claim limitations. And we have guidance from the 00:24:14
`
`Patent Board on the claim construction or how one 00:24:21
`
`would understand those claims, which I did rely on, 00:24:27
`
`which is that those claims require two separate 00:24:33
`
`inputs to the external power source or charging 00:24:38
`
`system that are used to vary the power. 00:24:44
`
` So what or how any later specific 00:24:54
`
`commercial system might operate really isn't relevant 00:25:01
`
`to the question of what is disclosed in the two prior 00:25:06
`
`art references, what isn't disclosed. And I have no 00:25:11
`
`reservation at all that I was not being consistent in 00:25:18
`
`the way that I applied the -- the claims to either 00:25:24
`
`the prior art or the Axonics system. 00:25:33
`
` MS. JAMESON: I am going to mark for 00:25:48
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 20
` the record, so that we have it in the 00:25:49
`
` deposition, your rebuttal declarations. 00:25:51
`
` So I am first going to mark your 00:26:07
`
` rebuttal declaration related to the '758 00:26:12
`
` patent, and then I'm also going to mark for 00:26:17
`
` the record your declaration on the '148 00:26:19
`
` patent, and that will be Exhibits 1 and 2. 00:26:36
`
` (Mihran Deposition Exhibit 1, Dr. Mihran's
`
`Rebuttal Declaration for '758, was marked for
`
`identification.)
`
` (Mihran Deposition Exhibit 2, Dr. Mihran's
`
`Rebuttal Declaration for '148, was marked for
`
`identification.) 00:26:40
`
`BY MS. JAMESON: 00:26:40
`
` Q. Are you able to see those in AgileLaw? 00:26:41
`
` A. Let me look. I do have the hard copies, 00:26:43
`
`but let me just confirm. 00:26:46
`
` Q. You can -- you can use the hard copies. 00:26:47
`
` I do want to confirm that the documents we 00:26:50
`
`marked are your October 31st declarations. 00:26:52
`
` A. Would you like me to open them and review 00:26:56
`
`them for that purpose? 00:26:57
`
` Q. Yes, please. Please take a look and 00:26:58
`
`confirm they're your rebuttal declarations. 00:27:01
`
` A. So I'm opening Document 1, which appears to 00:27:05
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 20 of 230
`
`

`

`Page 21
`be my rebuttal declaration directed to the '758 00:27:13
`
`patent. That does appear to be the declaration -- 00:27:19
`
`the rebuttal declaration filed on October 31st for 00:27:37
`
`the '758. The document -- 00:27:41
`
` Q. Go ahead. 00:27:48
`
` A. I'm sorry. I'm just looking at Exhibit 2 00:27:50
`
`now, the second one. And this does appear to be the 00:27:53
`
`document that I submitted as my rebuttal declaration 00:28:14
`
`for the '148. 00:28:17
`
` Q. Do you agree that in the Schulman reference 00:28:29
`
`there is a vo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket