`______________
`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 MARY LOU O’NEIL ON BEHALF
`OF PETITIONER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,064,970
`
`I, Mary Lou O’Neil, 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 Mary Lou O’Neil who provided a Declaration in this
`
`matter executed on September 14, 2012 as Exhibit 1009, and a Rebuttal Declaration
`
`in this matter executed on August 6, 2013 as Exhibit 1022. (My information
`
`regarding experience, qualifications, and compensation has been provided along with
`
`my prior Declaration, Exhibit 1009, and CV, Exhibit 1010.)
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1032
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00002
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Response to Evidentiary Objections
`
`2.
`
`I understand an evidentiary objection has been made to Exhibit 1022,
`
`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
`
`13-14.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a further evidentiary objection has been made to
`
`Exhibit 1022, 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 10-11. As I stated in my Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1022), I
`
`testified in Exhibit 1022 solely to rebut issues actually raised by Patent Owner in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including assertions and opinions of Michael Miller
`
`expressed in his declaration of May 1, 2013 (attached to the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`as Exhibit 2010) 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.
`
`In Exhibit 1022, my Rebuttal Declaration, I indicated that Exhibit 1023
`
`was downloaded from the web site of the publisher, the Actuarial Standards Board,
`
`http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/pdf/superseded/intopinion.PDF, which
`
`notes that the document was adopted 1970-1982 by the American Academy of
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`Aug 27 13 03:40p
`
`O'Neil Consulting Service
`
`4128842402
`
`P-2
`
`Actuaries and republished in 1992 by the Actuarial Standards Board. I have been in
`
`possession of a hard copy of Interpretive Opinion 4: Actuarial Principles and
`
`Practices since its initial publication in 1982 (and as revised in 1990). For purposes of
`
`my declaration and ease of provision to counsel, I downloaded Exhibit 1023 {which
`
`contains the same substance as the hard copy I have had in my possession) onjuly 30,
`
`2013. I was familiar with and have used Interpretive Opinion 4 found in Exhibit 1023
`
`in my work on numerous occasions during the period in which it was in force.
`
`Executed this 27th day of August, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`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
