`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`—————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`
`
`The undersigned, on behalf of Patent Owner Progressive Casualty Insurance
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`Co. (“Patent Owner”), hereby provides Notice to the Board that the objections
`
`made on the record herewith were served to Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. See also 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`
`
`
`
`September 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JONES DAY
`
`/s/Calvin P. Griffith
`Calvin P. Griffith
`Registration No. 34,831
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`(216) 586-3939
`(216) 579-0212 (Fax)
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`—————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of Patent
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`Owner Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. (“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the
`
`following objections to Exhibit 1034 filed on September 18, 2013 by Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. (“Liberty” or “Petitioner”) in response to Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence, filed September 4, 2013. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62,
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER MAINTAINS ITS PRIOR OBJECTIONS
`
`Patent Owner maintains all objections it previously set forth, including its
`
`objections filed on August 13, 2013 and September 4, 2013. (See CBM2012-
`
`00002, Paper Nos. 34 and 39).
`
`II. EXHIBIT 1034 GOES BEYOND EVIDENCE PERMITTED UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(2)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) provides that a “party relying on evidence to which
`
`an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental
`
`evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.” Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibit 1034 because it goes beyond, and is not proper supplemental
`
`evidence pursuant to, 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`III. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1034 AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit 1034, Declaration of Mary Lou
`
`O’Neil, dated September 18, 2013 (“O’Neil Fourth Declaration”).
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), F.R.E. 901 (Authentication), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of Supplemental Evidence), F.R.E. 702, 703, 705 (Witness
`
`Not Qualified to Provide Expert Testimony), F.R.E. 602 (Lack of Personal
`
`Knowledge), F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`(Outside Scope of Response and Petition), and the O’Neil Fourth Declaration is
`
`unauthorized testimony.
`
`Patent Owner advanced no position that provides a proper basis for the
`
`belated submission of the O’Neil Fourth Declaration or the exhibits referenced
`
`therein, i.e., Exhibit 1023 and the O’Neil Third Declaration (Exhibit 1032). (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)). The statements
`
`in the O’Neil Fourth Declaration have no relevant bearing on any issue properly
`
`raised in this proceeding or argument raised by Patent Owner. (F.R.E. 402, 403;
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61). Rather, the O’Neil Fourth Declaration is an attempt to raise
`
`new theories to support invalidity arguments in an effort to establish a prima facie
`
`case of unpatentability of the claims that should have been submitted with the
`
`Petitioner’s petition. The content of the O’Neil Third Declaration and Exhibit
`
`1023 are either inapplicable or should have been submitted when the petition for
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`review was filed, not after the institution of this trial. (F.R.E. 403; 37 C.F.R.
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`§ 42.223; 37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Further, O’Neil’s new testimony could have been elicited during direct
`
`examination in the first instance. (Id.) O’Neil’s attempt to now offer testimony in
`
`her Declaration is not rebuttal evidence and should not be allowed to remedy any
`
`deficiency any improperly previously filed O’Neil Declaration.
`
`The O’Neil Fourth Declaration was not authorized by the Board. None of
`
`the PTAB rules or regulations authorizes filing new testimonial evidence in
`
`conjunction with a Petitioner reply that does not arise from the submission of a
`
`substitute claim or is responsive to a Patent Owner’s claim amendments, especially
`
`in light of the prejudice to Patent Owner because there is no opportunity to respond
`
`to or rebut new declarations submitted at this stage. Consequently, the O’Neil
`
`Fourth Declaration is both outside the scope of Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`impermissible supplemental evidence. (37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Petitioner apparently presents the O’Neil Fourth Declaration, and
`
`specifically ¶ 2, in an attempt to verify the source, dates and/or authenticity of
`
`Exhibit 1023, titled “Interpretative Opinion 3: Professional Communications of
`
`Actuaries and Interpretive Opinion 4: Actuarial Principles and Practices.” O’Neil
`
`claims to be “familiar with” and to “have used” Opinion No. 3 without specifying
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`how she used it or was familiar with it or specifying when she used it or became
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`familiar with it, including whether that use and familiarity was coextensive with
`
`any use of or familiarity with Opinion No. 4. (See O’Neil Fourth Declaration, at
`
`¶ 2.) Nor is O’Neil claiming that her hard copy document is identical to Exhibit
`
`1023, but rather claims some of the words are “the same” and then adds the
`
`ambiguous description that they “may contain slightly different formatting,”
`
`conceding her lack of knowledge. (Id., emphasis added). O’Neil has failed to
`
`provide any relevant statement or personal knowledge regarding the original
`
`publication date of the materials submitted as Exhibit 1023 (F.R.E. 402, 602; 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61); and she failed to provide any proper basis for concluding that the
`
`document is a true and accurate copy as it existed at the time of publication, to the
`
`extent it was published prior to when she purportedly downloaded it (F.R.E. 901).
`
`Therefore, the declaration, and testimony regarding Exhibit 1023, is both
`
`prejudicial and irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61; F.R.E. 403).
`
`Furthermore, the O’Neil Fourth Declaration seeks to verify the source of
`
`Exhibit 1023 even though it is inadmissible supplemental evidence and not
`
`relevant to any issue of this proceeding. (F.R.E. 402; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`Consequently, the O’Neil Fourth Declaration is irrelevant, outside the scope of
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, and constitutes impermissible supplemental evidence.
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, part II, § I).
`
`All the statements contained in the O’Neil Fourth Declaration are out of
`
`court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute
`
`impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the O’Neil Fourth Declaration
`
`refers to out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein,
`
`and they also constitute impermissible hearsay. (Id.)1 Nor has a showing been
`
`made that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies.
`
`Additionally, the O’Neil Fourth Declaration is not relevant because O’Neil
`
`is not qualified to testify and lacks the necessary “scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge [to] help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine a fact in issue” because she is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the
`
`subject matter on which she has offered her opinions in her declaration. (F.R.E.
`
`702; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65; see also F.R.E. 402, 703, 705).
`
`Accordingly, permitting any reliance on this purported expert testimony in
`
`submissions of Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Patent
`
`Owner. (F.R.E. 403).
`
`
`1 For example, in ¶ 2, O’Neil refers to her Third Declaration.
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For at least these reasons, the Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1034.
`
`Case CBM2012-00002
`Patent 6,064,970
`
`
`
`September 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JONES DAY
`
`/s/Calvin P. Griffith
`Calvin P. Griffith
`Registration No. 34,831
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`(216) 586-3939
`(216) 579-0212 (Fax)
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLI-2145305v1
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`were served on September 25, 2013 by causing them to be sent by email to counsel
`
`for the Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Nicole.jantzi@ropesgray.com
`James.myers@ropesgray.com
`LibertyMutualPTABService@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John V. Biernacki
`John V. Biernacki
`Registration No. 40,511
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
`
`
`
`