Exhibit 2

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 2055
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IQE KC, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AKOUSTIS, INC. AND AKOUSTIS

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Miscellaneous Action

No. 1:24-mc-91053-AK

BEFORE: MAGISTRATE JUDGE JENNIFER C. BOAL

MOTION HEARING

John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse

1 Courthouse Way

Boston, MA 02210

April 24, 2024

2:00 p.m.

Transcribed by Valerie A. O'Hara

Official Court Reporter

John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse

1 Courthouse Way

Boston, MA 02210

E-mail: vaohara@gmail.com

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2056
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

2

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, by ROBERT NIEMEIER, 

ESQ., 1101 K Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005; 

Holland & Knight, LLP, by GORDON P. KATZ, ESQ., 

10 St. James Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02116; 

For the Defendants: 

McKool Smith, P.C., by JAMES E. QUIGLEY, ESQ., 

and JOHN B. CAMPBELL, ESQ., 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100

Austin, Texas 78701. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 2057
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

10:26AM

10:29AM

3

PROCEEDINGS

THE CLERK: Today is April 24th, 2024 and we are 

on the record in the matter of IQE KC, LLC vs. Akoustis.

Technology, Inc., Case Number 24-MC-90153. 

Will counsel please identify yourselves for the 

record. 

MR. NIEMEIER: This is Robert Niemeier with 

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox on behalf of plaintiff, 

IQE. 

MR. KATZ: And Gordon Katz from Holland & Knight 

for IQE. 

MR. QUIGLEY: James Quigley from McKool Smith, 

and with me is John Campbell from McKool Smith as well. 

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. And I did 

just want to mention before we start that Ms. Early, who I 

understand has been involved in the case, she and I serve 

on an editorial board together. I don't think that's a 

basis for recusal but I thought I would just mention it in 

case anyone had any questions about that. 

So it is IQE's motion, so I'll hear from you 

first. 

MR. NIEMEIER: I'll just pose this now. So there 

was a request to transfer from Akoustis, so I don't know 

if you wanted to hear about that first or if you would 

just like us to talk about the merits of the motion. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 2058
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

10:33AM

10:40AM

4

THE COURT: However you would like to proceed. 

MR. NIEMEIER: Okay, that's fine. We'll proceed 

and then we can take whatever issues on rebuttal we need 

to. 

So we're here today on IQE's motion to quash the 

subpoena. The subpoena was issued by Akoustis on a 

related patent litigation in Eastern District of Texas. 

The subpoena seeks IQE's most sensitive trade 

secrets. It seeks financial information, it seeks patent 

evaluation information, all of which is overbroad, much of 

which is wholly irrelevant to the claims in the underlying 

action, and all of which is extremely burdensome, unduly 

so to IQE, and so on that basis, the subpoena should be 

quashed as unduly burdensome. It should also be quashed 

as calling for the disclosure of IQE's trade secrets and 

confidential information. 

I'd like to explain a little. So the subpoena I 

think can be broken down into two sort of chunks of 

documents. One is the growth recipes and the other sort 

of everything else, other technical documents, financials 

under communications, that sort of thing. 

The growth recipes are essentially the secret 

sauce to IQE's business. IQE makes wafers that are used 

in semiconductors. There are very few companies in the 

world that do this. It produces these wafers by building 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 2059
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

10:44AM

10:46AM

5

layers, sometimes only atoms thick, and specific 

crystalline structures on top of a substrate, and this is 

very, very difficult to do. It requires a lot of trial 

and error. It takes a long time to develop this 

technology. 

The growth recipe is essentially the culmination 

of that. It says here's how you build this wafer. It has 

the steps that you would perform, how long you perform for 

it, what temperature, what reactants are used, everything 

you would need to know. 

This is -- it can't really be overstated how 

sensitive this information is to IQE. Were it to get out, 

it would considerably undermine IQE's position in the 

market, and the issue here is Akoustis has proposed 

treating it as source code, which is the highest level of 

protection under the protective order in the underlying 

case in Texas. 

The issue is the growth recipes for each wafer 

could be reduced to a matter of a few pages. Often in 

protective orders for source code, you have limitations on 

printing on the order of hundreds pages of total or 20 or 

50 or some number of pages consecutively. 

In that case, it would be possible to print out 

the entire recipe, and so that would pose a much greater 

danger of disclosure and competitive harm to IQE vs. your 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 2060
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

10:48AM

11:08AM

6

traditional source code, which has little value and 

discrete chunks that may be only one or two or 10 pages of 

something that could be millions of pages, like a 

traditional source code often is. 

So there is really no way under the protective 

order to adequately protect this. The protective order 

also -- 

THE COURT: Just so I understand, I thought in 

your motion papers you had suggested that there were 

protections that you might want that might answer your 

concerns but that the other side had not agreed to it. So 

is what you're saying now is that there are no 

protections? 

MR. NIEMEIER: So there are no protections that 

will adequately protect it. What we had offered 

previously was the one product, we would make that recipe 

available, and that was sort of as a way to cooperate and 

hopefully, you know, resolve this and avoid the risk that 

all of the growth recipes would be subject to disclosure 

and potential, you know, leakage. 

So the measures that we had suggested for that 

recipe, it would not be our position that they would 

adequately protect the recipe. That was a compromise we 

were willing to make to avoid the risk of a larger 

disclosure. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 2061
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

11:13AM

01:01PM

7

So the proposed also does not apply to trial 

proceedings, it covers discovery. I believe Judge 

Gilstrap is presiding over the case in Texas, and it would 

be entirely within his discretion to leave the courtroom 

open at trial or to permit disclosure of any confidential 

information that he saw fit, and so IQE really has no way 

to ensure that even if the folks at Akoustis and everyone 

else involved in that case, you know, abided by the 

protective order stringently that these materials wouldn't 

ultimately be disclosed either to the business people at 

Akoustis or to the defendant Qorvo or to anybody who was 

attending that trial, and we have no way to protect that. 

They've suggested in their briefing that we 

could attend trial and represent our own interests in that 

respect, but at the end of the day, it will be the 

District Judge who makes the call, so even if we were 

there, which itself would be a burden, we're not 

protected. 

So the lack of adequate protections in the 

protective order and the lack of ways that it could be 

modified to offer that protection, that constitutes an 

enormous burden to IQE, and so that, we would argue, 

constitutes reason to quash the motion and would also 

constitute a basis to quash the motion under the trade 

secret exception under Rule 45. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 2062
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

01:03PM

01:04PM

8

THE COURT: So if I understand correctly, there 

are no additional protections that you've asked for from 

the other side that they have not agreed to? 

MR. NIEMEIER: We had proposed, I believe, 

limiting, prohibiting printing of the pages. 

THE COURT: But with respect to the one product? 

MR. NIEMEIER: With respect to the one product. 

THE COURT: But you haven't proposed anything 

with respect to all the products or the other information? 

MR. NIEMEIER: That's correct. 

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else? 

MR. NIEMEIER: Would you like me to address the 

transfer motion now? 

THE COURT: Yes, that would be fine. 

MR. NIEMEIER: So the transfer motion, Rule 45 

requires there to be exceptional circumstances to transfer 

subpoena from the court of compliance to the issuing 

court. Here, I think it's pretty clear there are no 

exceptional circumstances. 

Akoustis has pointed to a decision made by the 

Judge in Texas relating to the scope of the accused 

products, and they're concerned that that issue would need 

to be relitigated in this court. That is not the case. 

We are not disputing the scope of the accused products at 

this point, so that court's decision wouldn't have any 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 2063
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

01:07PM

01:09PM

9

bearing. There wouldn't be any chance of an inconsistent 

decision. 

They've also indicated that they've issued a 

similar subpoena to the one issued to IQE to another 

party, a competitor of IQE's called Wolfspeed, and the 

Wolfspeed subpoena, I understand, is or was at the time of 

briefing being negotiated, and there was potential that 

Wolfspeed could challenge that subpoena similar to how 

we're here today. 

And they suggest that these subpoenas should be 

transferred to Texas to avoid having to relitigate sort of 

the same issues in multiple venues, but I don't think 

that's an issue. As far as we know, Wolfspeed has not 

filed a motion to quash or sought a protective order for 

the subpoena, and even if they did, you know, the factual 

underpinnings of each party's situation are different, and 

they would need to be resolved on the merits regardless of 

whether both motions were heard in Texas or his motion was 

here and the Wolfspeed one heard in its compliance court. 

THE COURT: So in terms of also the exceptional 

nature, I mean, you've made argument that the gross 

recipes are something of particular importance to IQE, so 

why wouldn't that be an exceptional circumstance that this 

product is so important to the company that it really, the 

issues with respect to it should be decided by the court 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:

2064
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

01:11PM

01:11PM

10

that's going to conduct the trial and you can make them 

aware of these exceptional issues? 

MR. NIEMEIER: I think the growth recipes are 

exceptional to IQE as far as its concern with this case. 

I don't think that would rise to an exceptional 

circumstance in the transfer analysis. I think generally 

that's referring to whether or not decisions in this court 

would contradict or impinge on the management of the case 

from the court where the case is pending. 

I think this court would have all the information 

in front of it that it would need to make a decision on 

that. I don't believe that the court in Texas would have 

any further familiarity or competency with the issues to 

decide. 

THE COURT: But you would be making a pitch for 

how that court would govern the trial itself? 

MR. NIEMEIER: I'm not sure, how do you mean? 

THE COURT: Well, in your argument, let's say the 

case was going to be heard by Judge Kelley, you would be 

making an argument that you needed extra protections at 

trial? 

MR. NIEMEIER: I see. Yes, that's correct. 

THE COURT: I mean, I'm not really in a position 

to bind the trial court on that. 

MR. NIEMEIER: Certainly. And I think ultimately 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:

2065
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

01:12PM

01:13PM

11

if we had to produce these materials, I think we would go 

back and work with Akoustis to try and resolve that, you 

know, by agreement without involving the Court, but, yes, 

it's not clear to me as a nonparty whether we would have 

any ability to press for modifications to the protective 

order in Texas, whether or not the case was transferred 

there or not. 

THE COURT: Right, perhaps even better reason to 

have this argued in front of the court there. So in terms 

of Akoustis filed a judicial notice I believe on the same 

day or around the same day as your reply motion was filed. 

Do you want to comment on the judicial notice and the 

purposes for which Akoustis said they filed it? 

MR. NIEMEIER: My understanding is they filed the 

request for judicial notice of the IPR petition that was 

filed by IQE. We don't have any objection to the request 

for judicial notice. I think it's public record that IQE 

filed the IPR petition against the underlying patent. 

THE COURT: Right. I think, I could be wrong, 

but I took their argument to be that you're not a 

disinterested party in the litigation. 

MR. NIEMEIER: And I would disagree with that. I 

think it's a little bit backwards to say that because we 

were subpoenaed and, you know, are being pushed to produce 

the sensitive information and then in response to that 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:

2066
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

01:17PM

01:18PM

12

file these motions and filed the IPR that we become an 

interested party. 

You know, the interest that I think they're 

suggesting arises out of this subpoena and IQE's interest 

of avoiding disclosure of information. I think it would 

be a little bit backwards to suggest that by imposing in 

whatever way you can request for this discovery that you 

become interested and then subject to a broader scope of 

discovery. 

THE COURT: I could be wrong, I thought they were 

arguing sort of the opposite because you filed the action 

in front of the patent board that that was a showing of 

interest that affected how I should view your arguments 

here. 

MR. NIEMEIER: So the IPR was filed after the 

subpoena, and after all of this sort of we couldn't reach 

an agreement and there was a motion to quash. It's 

another attempt certainly to prevent having to disclose 

this information. If the IPR were successful, it might 

dispose of the underlying action, so I think our position 

would be that it shouldn't be held against us that we're 

imposing the subpoena and the discovery efforts with what 

means we have available. 

THE COURT: So, in terms of burden, and I don't 

believe I heard you talk about burden. If I understand 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:

2067
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

01:19PM

01:22PM

13

correctly, you would be producing the documents 

electronically, correct? 

MR. NIEMEIER: So for the documents, leaving 

aside the growth recipes, yes. 

THE COURT: Right. 

MR. NIEMEIER: They would be, to the extent 

they're in electronic form, which I believe most of them 

would be, we would produce them electronically. For the 

growth recipes, if we were in a position where we had to 

produce them, we would likely do some sort of an 

inspection, either at our office in Washington D.C. or at 

some other location, and we would need to negotiate, I 

think, whether and to what extent any printing of those 

could be done or copying, and so those copies would 

probably be in paper format, as is often done with source 

code. 

THE COURT: Okay. And you have made some 

allusion to some potential witnesses testifying in Texas, 

but at this point there's no request for testimony? 

MR. NIEMEIER: Correct. The subpoena did not 

include a request for testimony. 

THE COURT: And I think you had made an argument 

that Akoustis could get the information, a lot of the 

information from Qorvo, but I guess how does that apply to 

the growth recipes, which sounds like you haven't shared 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:

2068
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

01:23PM

01:24PM

14

with anyone, according to your papers? 

MR. NIEMEIER: That's correct. They would not be 

able to obtain the entirety of the information that's in 

the growth recipes from Qorvo, at least we would hope not. 

They are able to get information from Qorvo on sort of the 

structure of the products that are being accused. They're 

able to get samples of the products, I would presume, from 

Qorvo that they could then perform the sort of testing 

that they did in the complaint, but they would not be able 

to get exactly the information that's in the growth 

recipes from Qorvo. 

THE COURT: All right. Anything else? 

MR. NIEMEIER: On burden, I would just say, you 

know, I think in their briefing, they made light of sort 

of the collecting of the growth recipes and said, you 

know, it would be as simple somebody walking to the 

machine and downloading it and then sending it off. I 

think it's a little more involved than that. 

So these machines, the growth recipes are only 

stored on the reactors that are producing these materials. 

They're not saved in any kind of other location, and the 

reactors are behind sort of the secure perimeter in the 

facility, and the only people who have access are the 

technicians who operate the reactors, and so what would 

have to happen is a technician would have to shut down 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:

2069
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

01:27PM

01:29PM

15

their machine to travel to these other reactors to 

retrieve the recipes one-by-one, and, you know, as they're 

manufacturing, as the reactors are running, the 

technicians have to stay and monitor it, and since this 

technician would have to leave to perform the collection, 

that machine would have to be shut down, and so that would 

be time when IQE is not able to manufacture using that 

equipment, and so there is some fairly substantial burden 

having a technician go from machine to machine and 

download each of these recipes individually, and there's 

also a burden of identifying which wafers are involved. 

The supplied products definition in the subpoena 

is quite broad, and it doesn't tie anything to particular 

Qorvo models, so in the underlying litigation, I 

understand Akoustis has accused a long list of several 

thousand Qorvo products. IQE doesn't have visibility into 

what Qorvo product numbers correspond to which wafer, and 

so what we have to do is go through all of the wafers that 

have been sold to Qorvo and figure out whether they meet 

sort of the functional definition that's in the subpoena 

for the supplied products, and so that would be sort of a 

manual process as well. 

THE COURT: But I have no concrete estimate of 

the cost of that burden, right, before me? 

MR. NIEMEIER: Yes. I don't know what it would 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:

2070
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

01:32PM

01:33PM

16

cost. It would be a number of person hours, and I don't 

have in front of me what it would cost for the time the 

reactor was down. 

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Yes. Who is going 

to speak on behalf of Akoustis? 

MR. QUIGLEY: Your Honor, Jim Quigley of McKool 

Smith. Let me actually, is it okay if I pass up some 

slides? 

THE COURT: No. 

MR. QUIGLEY: No slides? 

THE COURT: No, I find that distracting during 

oral agreement and not typically very useful. 

MR. QUIGLEY: Sure. Well, I'll start at the 

beginning of where I was going to start, and I'll hit on 

some of the points opposing counsel mentioned just now and 

some of the issues that you raised. 

Just as some background, Akoustis sued Qorvo in 

the Eastern District related to a patent that a prior 

Qorvo entity was the exclusive licensee on. Akoustis, for 

all good reasons, believed Qorvo was making this stuff 

because Qorvo's website says Qorvo was making this. 

So we sued Qorvo in the Eastern District where 

their facility is, and we asked Qorvo for information like 

growth recipes, manufacturing details, and Qorvo says we 

don't have it, actually, you know, you should talk to our 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:

2071
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

01:38PM

01:39PM

17

wafer suppliers, one of them is IQE and pointed us to, I 

believe it's in the record as one of our exhibits, a press 

release from 2012 where a wafer facility, it doesn't say 

it's GAN but a wafer facility was transferred from Qorvo 

to IQE. 

THE COURT: And how many suppliers are we talking 

about? I understand there's Wolfspeed as well, but are 

there others? 

MR. QUIGLEY: Those are the two that are being 

focused on right now. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. QUIGLEY: And so what we did is we went to 

the suppliers with subpoenas, and I think with Wolfspeed 

we tried to informally work it out because there were some 

other negotiations that had already happened, but they 

have been subpoenaed as well, asked them, you know, for 

this information. 

At this point, we've actually started to get some 

growth recipe information from Wolfspeed, you know, they 

printed it out and FedExed it to our expert, but IQE on 

the other hand has been more resistant here, and, you 

know, so we served the subpoena on IQE in October 2023. 

We got objections, we tried to work with IQE to get 

something. IQE took the position, like Qorvo was at that 

same time, that the only accused product in the case was 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:

2072
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

01:41PM

01:43PM

18

the QPD 1000 product, so IQE and Qorvo refused to give us 

anything beyond that. 

You know, January 10th of 2024, we have a hearing 

in front of Judge Payne and Judge Payne, you know, denies 

Qorvo's motion to strike by saying, of course, the other 

products are at issue. You're going to have to turn over 

that information. 

We told IQE this, so IQE promptly went from 

offering one growth recipe in Washington D.C. to offering 

nothing at all and filing a motion in this court. 

I want to be clear, you know, we've never taken 

the position we won't agree to further protections. Our 

issue in December and in January were that we weren't 

going to send an expert 2500 miles on an airplane to look 

at one recipe when there are others that are at issue. 

And I don't think that there are dozens and dozens and 

dozens of wafers at issue here, my understanding is it's 

handfuls. 

Now, there may be, you know, the need to grab 

different versions of those recipes for those handfuls of 

wafers, but this isn't, you know, thousands and thousands 

of different wafers that are being made as far as I'm 

aware. IQE can correct me if I'm wrong. So I think that 

goes, you know, to the unduly burdensome argument that IQE 

is making. It's not actually that many wafers. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:

2073
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

01:45PM

02:24PM

19

THE COURT: And do you anticipate deposition 

testimony or other testimony? 

MR. QUIGLEY: So we haven't served the deposition 

subpoena, and to the extent we do, the way I would 

typically handle this is I would look for a declaration 

just authenticating whatever the documents are that you 

provided. You know, one of the points I wanted to raise, 

and, you know, counsel hit on this, and you, your Honor, 

hit on this, I don't think IQE is a truly disinterested 

party in this case. 

THE COURT: Well, I think it's your argument. 

MR. QUIGLEY: Well, he hit on it and responded to 

it --

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. QUIGLEY: -- but, you know, mere days after 

the briefing on this motion to quash is complete, IQE 

files an IPR petition, and I don't know how acquainted 

your Honor is with IPR petitions, but it's a $40,000 

filing fee, probably tens of thousands of dollars on 

expert fees, maybe another six figures in attorney's fees. 

I mean, that's a lot of money for a disinterested 

third party to be spending fighting a patent, and, you 

know, coincidentally, IQE hired the same expert that Qorvo 

is using in another case for that IPR. Coincidentally, 

IQE asserted the same primary prior art references that 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:

2074
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

02:28PM

02:29PM

20

Qorvo is asserting in the Eastern District case against 

the same patent. 

And so, you know, from what we see over time, 

there is some coordination going on between IQE and Qorvo. 

I don't know what that is. It's a customer supplier 

relationship. It could be close, it could be some, you 

know, some fighting, but IQE is certainly in the loop on 

stuff that's happening, and so to the extent there are 

concerns on, you know, harm that's going to befall IQE 

here, you know, by disclosing these recipes, I would just 

say that there's no competitors, IQE's competitors are not 

involved in this case. This is Qorvo and Akoustis. There 

hasn't been an allegation that there are actually 

competitors. 

Akoustis has always been willing to agree to 

additional protections for these growth recipes. I would 

expect nothing less. I mean, I agree these are sensitive. 

We'll review them on a source code computer. We won't 

print more than we need to print. The Eastern District 

protective order that's I think in the record as our 

Exhibit 28 has, you know, specific requirements that you 

not print things just to review them elsewhere. 

THE COURT: And what about the argument that the 

protective order only covers precisely discovery? 

MR. QUIGLEY: So, that's correct, there's a 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:

2075
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

02:30PM

02:31PM

21

paragraph in the protective order that says that, you 

know, parties can use designated material at trial. I 

agree. I think as your Honor noted, that may be, you 

know, a reason to transfer, you know, this motion to quash 

or this subpoena to the Eastern District because the 

Judges there are going to be able to rule on those 

protection issues at trial. 

And we, for Akoustis, are more than willing to 

work with IQE to seal the courtroom and that sort of 

thing. I have no interest in having an open courtroom 

when somebody's sensitive information is being discussed. 

That's not what I would like to do. 

THE COURT: What is the status of the Wolfspeed 

subpoena? I understand there's been some discussion that 

you've been able to work some of the issues out. 

MR. QUIGLEY: We have received some growth recipe 

information. We've worked with them to narrow down what 

it is we're going to receive, and I believe we're 

receiving more after we finalize some of the details. 

THE COURT: And what in terms of burden on IQE, 

what, if you know, is the Eastern District of Texas's 

policy or maybe it's these particular Judges's policies 

with respect to conducting a hearing by Zoom? 

MR. QUIGLEY: I don't know that offhand, your 

Honor, I apologize. I do want to discuss the burden issue 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:

2076
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

02:33PM

02:35PM

22

just momentarily. I heard counsel explaining, you know, 

what some of the burden is. I think if you go and look at 

Exhibit 3 to their motion, there's not actually that 

detail about the burden, it just says there's going to 

need to be an extraction and a conversion and sending 

files to counsel. 

I don't think there's anything in the record 

about the time or expense or, you know, how tough it 

actually is. You know, obviously, we'll work with IQE to 

make it as simple as possible just to get that information 

on a source code review computer, somewhere that is 

convenient for IQE. 

THE COURT: And what about IQE's argument that 

the magistrate judge's decision in Texas about the accused 

products is not similar to the issue that's before me in 

terms of relevance? 

MR. QUIGLEY: So I do disagree. I heard earlier, 

and I think this is a quote, that IQE is not disputing the 

scope of the accused products, but I think IQE actually 

was doing that in its papers in this case trying to 

suggest that the materials that Akoustis is entitled to 

via subpoena are narrower than in the Eastern District. 

I think if you look at accused instrumentalities 

definition and supply products definition, both of them 

have a substantive component, which is specific epitaxial 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:

2077
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

02:36PM

02:38PM

23

levels with specific substrates, and they both have a time 

component from April 2017 onwards. We are seeking 

material from IQE that is overlapping with the material 

that we sought from Qorvo that Qorvo doesn't possess. 

THE COURT: And IQE also says you should get 

certain information from Qorvo, so, for example, some of 

the financial documents seem to be readily available from 

Qorvo. 

MR. QUIGLEY: So I agree there's some information 

that we can obtain from Qorvo. I think some of these 

topics cover things that Qorvo may have but IQE is going 

to uniquely possess. I can simplify things. We will 

focus on topics 3, 4, 6 and 16, which are the growth 

recipe topics according to IQE, and I can't get that from 

anyone besides IQE. 

THE COURT: Meaning that you're not contesting 

the motion to compel except on 3, 4, 6 and 16 or you're 

just -- 

MR. QUIGLEY: The motion to quash. 

THE COURT: The motion to quash. 

MR. QUIGLEY: We'll drop the rest of the 

requests. 

THE COURT: Okay. Let me see if I have anything 

else. And just to be clear, I think this is consistent 

with what IQE said, but you're unable to obtain the 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:

2078
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

02:41PM

02:42PM

24

information concerning growth recipes from any other 

source? 

MR. QUIGLEY: Correct. We can do reverse 

engineering, like we talked about in the papers, but 

reverse engineering can tell you really basic information. 

You know, if you say I want to know if there's carbon or 

hydrogen or nitrogen in it, it can give you some idea of 

whether that material is in there and where it is, but it 

can't tell you things like temperature and pressure and 

specific reactants that were used. 

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further from 

IQE? 

MR. NIEMEIER: Yes, just briefly. Akoustis, they 

mentioned a facility, I think, the manufacturing facility 

that was transferred from Qorvo to IQE. That was a number 

of years ago. That facility I understand has since been 

closed, so there are no wafers involved being made there, 

and I don't think it has any relevance as to whether or 

not we're an interested party. 

You know, he mentioned the cost of the IPRs. I 

wanted to underline that's correct. It's very expensive, 

and that's just how seriously IQE is taking the disclosure 

of this information, that these costs are worth it to 

their mind because of the risk of what could happen if 

these growth recipes get out. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:

2079
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

02:45PM

02:46PM

25

On the transfer issue, I think you have raised 

the point of wouldn't it make sense to transfer if there's 

going to be a fight over the protective order there? I 

think I would just point out that if the subpoena were 

quashed, there wouldn't be any need to get to the issue of 

revising the protective order because we wouldn't have any 

qualm with the current order, there wouldn't be anything 

to produce. 

And then just on the reverse engineering point, 

the analysis that they performed on the complaint, I 

think, you know, they pointed out there's certain things 

from that that we can't find, and they're saying that 

these are necessary for the infringement analysis, but 

they filed a complaint based on those reverse engineering, 

and they have their obligation to believe there's a basis 

for accusing an infringement. 

They're saying that this testing didn't give them 

information on X, Y, Z limitations form the patent, then 

what was the basis for filing the complaint? I think it's 

a little bit two-faced to come in now and say this testing 

wasn't sufficient for us to show infringement and we need, 

you know, this very sensitive information from you, IQE to 

build our case out. 

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, I will take it 

under advisement. 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:

2080
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

26

THE CLERK: Court is in recess. All rise. 

(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.) 

C E R T I F I C A T E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ss.

CITY OF BOSTON )

 I do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript, 

Pages 1 through 26 inclusive, was recorded by me 

stenographically at the time and place aforesaid in 

Miscellaneous Action No. 1:24-mc-91053-AK, IQE KC, LLC, vs. 

AKOUSTIS, INC. AND AKOUSTIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

and thereafter by me reduced to typewriting and is a true and 

accurate record of the proceedings.

 Dated April 30, 2024. 

s/s Valerie A. O'Hara

_________________________

 VALERIE A. O'HARA

 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 

Case 2:23-cv-00180-JRG-RSP Document 97-1 Filed 05/31/24 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:

2081