`______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`v.
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case CBM2012-00003
`Patent 8,140,358
`______________
`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. 8,140,358
`
`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 1025, and a Rebuttal Declaration in this
`
`matter executed on August 15, 2013 as Exhibit 1034. (My information regarding
`
`experience, qualifications, and compensation has been provided along with my prior
`
`Declaration, Exhibit 1025, and CV, Exhibit 1026.)
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1040
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00003
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Response to Evidentiary Objections
`
`2.
`
`I understand an evidentiary objection has been made to Exhibit 1034,
`
`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 1034, asserting that it has “no relevant bearing on any issue properly raised in
`
`this proceeding.” See Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64, at 9-11. As I stated in my Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1034), I
`
`testified in Exhibit 1034 solely to rebut issues actually raised by Patent Owner in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, including assertions and opinions of Ivan Zatkovich
`
`expressed in his declaration of June 11, 2013 (attached to the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response as Exhibit 2007) and certain assertions of Progressive in its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response of June 12, 2013. Contrary to Progressive’s evidentiary objection, my
`
`testimony was not offered to “raise new theories and invalidity arguments in an effort
`
`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 my previous Rebuttal Declaration, Exhibit 1034, I indicated Exhibit
`
`1035 was a true and correct copy of ISO8790-1987 – “Information Processing
`
`Systems – Computer System Configuration Diagram Symbols and Conventions,”
`
`published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1987 (1st
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`
`
`ed.), which I downloaded from the official ISO web site (www.iso.org) on August 15,
`
`2013. ISO8790-1987, as contained in Exhibit 1035, was in effect in January 1996 and
`
`had not been superseded or amended.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1038, the Declaration of Jordan M. Rossen, indicates Exhibit
`
`1037 was downloaded from The Apache Software Foundation website,
`
`http://www.apache.org/history/timeline.html. The Apache Software Foundation is
`
`“a US 501(3)(c) non-profit corporation [that] provides organizational, legal, and
`
`financial support for a broad range of over 140 open source software projects,”
`
`including the Apache Server projects. See http://www.apache.org/foundation/. In
`
`my experience in the computer industry, I would rely on The Apache Software
`
`Foundation website as a source of accurate information related to the history of the
`
`Apache Server, and I have visited and consulted this website in the course of my work
`
`in this field.
`
`
`
`Executed this 5th day of September, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott Andrews
`
`
`At: Petaluma, CA
`
`
`
`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
