`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`v.
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`______________
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R.
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RULE 42.64(b)(2) DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS ON BEHALF
`OF PETITIONER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,064,970
`
`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
`
`United States of America:
`
`I have previously been asked by Liberty Mutual Insurance (“Liberty”) to testify
`
`as an expert witness in this action.
`
`I.
`
`Prior Testimony
`
`1.
`
`I am the same Scott Andrews who provided a Declaration in this matter
`
`executed on September 15, 2012 as Exhibit 1012, and a Rebuttal Declaration in this
`
`matter executed on August 6, 2013 as Exhibit 1019. (My information regarding
`
`experience, qualifications, and compensation has been provided along with my prior
`
`Declaration, Exhibit 1012, and CV, Exhibit 1013.)
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1031
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00002
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Response to Evidentiary Objections
`
`2.
`
`I understand an evidentiary objection has been made to Exhibit 1019,
`
`asserting that it is hearsay, but in fact it is my sworn expert testimony in the matter.
`
`See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, at
`
`5.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a further evidentiary objection has been made to
`
`Exhibit 1019, asserting that it has “no relevant bearing on any issue actually raised in
`
`this proceeding.” See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64, at 2-3. As I stated in my Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1019), I
`
`testified in Exhibit 1019 solely to rebut issues actually raised by Patent Owner in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including assertions and opinions of Mark Ehsani
`
`expressed in his declaration of May 1, 2013 (attached to the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`as Exhibit 2016) and certain assertions of Progressive in its Patent Owner’s Response
`
`of May 1, 2013. Contrary to Progressive’s evidentiary objection, my testimony was
`
`not offered to “raise new theories to support [Liberty’s] invalidity arguments in order
`
`to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability of the claims,” which I understand the
`
`Board already found to exist in its Institution Decision.
`
`4.
`
`Furthermore, I understand that an evidentiary objection has been made
`
`to Exhibit 1019, asserting that my testimony “could have been elicited during direct
`
`examination in the first instance.” See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to
`
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, at 3-4. In particular, Progressive objects to
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`
`
`my testimony in paragraph 7 as an “alleged clarification” of my cross-examination
`
`testimony. Id. However, as I stated in my declaration, I was not attempting to clarify
`
`my testimony. I believe my testimony was quite clear. I was attempting to correct
`
`Progressive’s incorrect interpretation of my cross-examination testimony.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1030, the Declaration of Darrell W. Stark, indicates Exhibit 1020
`
`was downloaded from the publisher’s web site (www.ieee.org). I have downloaded
`
`the document on July 31, 2013 from the same publisher’s web site (in particular
`
`through its digital library at http://ieeexplore.org, which is linked to the publisher’s
`
`web site home page), and confirm that it contains identical text to the one filed as
`
`Exhibit 1020.
`
`
`
`
`Executed this 26th day of August, 2013
`
`
`
`
`At: Forestville, CA
`
`Scott Andrews
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
