`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 AND 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Attorneys/Agents For Petitioner
`
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel
`Registration No. 47,414
`Ching-Lee Fukuda, Back-up Counsel
`Registration No. 44,334
`James R. Batchelder, Back-up Counsel
`Pro Hac Vice Granted
`
`
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`(202) 508-4606 (Telephone)
`(617) 235-9492 (Fax)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................................ 3
`I.
`II. Mr. Snell is Not Qualified to Opine Under F.R.E. 702 ........................................... 4
`A. No Basis for Opinion That User Interfaces Of SightSound’s Electronic
`Store and iTMS Are Only Insignificantly Different ..................................... 5
`No Basis for Opinion That iTMS is “Co-Extensive” With The
`Challenged Patent Claims ................................................................................. 8
`No Basis for Opinions About Commercial Success/Failure ...................... 9
`C.
`D. No Basis for Opinions Based On Erroneous Construction of “Second
`Party” ................................................................................................................. 11
`E. No Basis For Opinions Based On Disagreement With The Inventor’s
`Statements, In Prosecution, Regarding The Meaning Of The Challenged
`Claims ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case CBl\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 4101
`
`United States Patent No. 5,191,573
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4102 United States Patent No. 5,191,573 File History
`
`Exhibit 4103
`
`Application No. 90/007,402 (’573 Patent Reexamination)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4104
`
`Exhibit 4105
`
`Exhibit 4106
`
`Exhibit 4107
`
`Exhibit 4108
`
`Exhibit 4109
`
`Exhibit 41 10
`
`Deposition Transcript of Arthur Hair, dated Dec. 1 1, 2012,
`SightSound Techs, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 11—1292 (W.D. Pa.)
`
`Deposition of Scott Sander, dated Dec. 18—19, 2012, SightSound
`Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 1 1—1292 (W.D. Pa.)
`
`“Joint Telerecording Push: CompuSonics, AT&T Link,” Bil/board
`(Oct. 5, 1985)
`
`David Needle, “From the News Desk: Audio/digital interface for
`the IBM PCP,” IIIfoW'or/(I', vol. 6, no. 23, p. 9,]une 4, 1984
`
`Larry Israelite, “Home Computing. Scenarios for Success,” Bil/board,
`Dec. 1 5, 1984
`
`International Patent Application W’OS5 /02310, filed on November
`14,1984, and published on l\»Iay 23,1985 (“Softnet”)
`
`United States Patent No. 3,718,906 filed on June 1, 1971, issued on
`February 27,1973 (“Lightner”)
`
`Exhibit 41 1 1
`
`United States Patent No. 3,990,710 filed on March 1, 197, issued on
`
`November 9, 1976 (“Hughes”)
`
`Exhibit 41 12
`
`Image titled, “CompuSonics Digital Audio Telecommunication
`System”
`
`Exhibit 41 13
`
`7/ 16/84 CompuSonics Letter from David Schwartz to Shareholders
`
`Exhibit 4114
`
`Hyun Heinz Sohn, “A High Speed Telecommunications Interface
`for Digital Audio Transmission and Reception,” presented at the
`
`76‘11 AES Convention, October 8—1 1, 1984
`
`Exhibit 4115
`
`10/ 10/85 CompuSonics Letter from David Schwartz to
`Shareholders
`
`Exhibit 4116
`
`CompuSonics Video Application Notes — CSX Digital Signal
`Processing (1986)
`
`Exhibit 4117
`
`Image titled, “CompuSonics Digital Audio Software Production/
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case CBl\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4118
`
`Exhibit 4119
`
`Exhibit 4120
`
`Exhibit 4121
`
`United States Patent No. 4,682,248 filed on September 17, 1985,
`issued on July 21, 1987 (“Schwartz Patent”)
`
`“The Search for the Digital Recorder,” Fortune Magazine (Nov. 12,
`1984)
`
`Excerpts of Lecture at Stanford by D. Schwartz andJ. Stautner,
`1987 (video)
`
`Bryan Bell, “Synth—Bank: The Ultimate Patch Library,” Eleafl‘om'c
`MIIIiL‘iflII (Sept. 1986)
`
`Exhibit 4122
`
`2/22/ 86 Agreement between Synth—Bank and Artist
`
`Exhibit 4123
`
`3/ 17/87 United States Patent & Trademark Office Notice of
`Acceptance and Renewal, Serial No. 73/568543
`
`Exhibit 4124
`
`“SynthBank Bulletin Board,” Keyboard Magazine (lVIarch 1987)
`
`Exhibit 4125
`
`Exhibit 4126
`
`“Inside lVIacintosh,” Volumes I, II, and III, Addison—Wesley
`Publishing Company, Inc. (1985)
`
`Craig Partridge, “The Technical Development of Internet Email,”
`BBN Technologies
`
`Exhibit 4127
`
`United States Patent 5,966,440 File History
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4128
`
`United States Patent No. 4,124,773 filed on November 26, 1976,
`
`issued on November 7,1978 (“Elkins”)
`
`Exhibit 4129
`
`United States Patent No. 4,667,088 filed on November 1, 1982,
`
`issued on lVIay 19,1987 (“Kramer et al.”)
`
`Exhibit 4130
`
`United States Patent No. 4,528,643 filed on January 10, 1983, issued
`on July 9, 1985 (“Freeny”)
`
`Exhibit 4131
`
`Photo of CompuSonics equipment
`
`Exhibit 4132
`
`Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4133
`
`Declaration of David Schwartz In Support of Petition for Covered
`Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4134
`
`1 1 / 19/ 12 Special 1V1aster’s Report and Recommendation on Claim
`Construction (D1. 142), S{gbeolma' Tet/35., LLC 12. Apple Inc, No. 11—
`1292 (WAD. Pa.)
`
`
`
`Case CB1\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 4135
`
`2/ 13/ 13 Order re Claim Construction (D.I. 175), 5rig/#3011ml Techn,
`LLC 11. Apple Inc, No. 11—1292 (“7.D. Pa.)
`
`Exhibit 4136
`
`United States Patent No. 5,675,734 File History
`
`Exhibit 4137
`
`Excerpt from Chamber: Science and Tee/analogy Dicfiomgr (1988)
`
`Exhibit 4138
`
`Excerpt from Webn‘er’: II New Riven/He Universib/ Dictionaol (1988)
`
`Exhibit 4139
`
`Declaration of Dr. John P.J. Kelly, dated Sept. 7, 2012
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4140
`
`Exhibit 4141
`
`New Te/erecording MefbodfirAm/io, Broadcast
`lVIanagement/Engineering, pp. 14—15, Oct. 1985
`
`4/20/01 Markman Hearing Transcript, Sig/JfSo/md. com Inc, 12. IVZK,
`Inc, ef al., No. 98—118 (\V.D. Pa.)
`
`Exhibit 4142
`
`Plaintiff SightSound Techs, LLC’s Expert Report of Dr. J. Douglas
`Tygar Regarding Infringement, dated April 22, 2013
`
`Exhibit 4143
`
`Declaration of Flora D. Elias—Alique In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4144
`
`Declaration of Ching—Lee Fukuda In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4145
`
`Declaration of Roberto J. Gonzalez In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4146
`
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond In Support of Petition for
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`
`Exhibit 4147
`
`Transcription of Audio, Excerpts of CompuSonics Lecture
`
`(Lecture at Stanford by D. Schwartz andJ. Stautner, 1987
`
`Exhibit 4148
`
`Expert Report of Dr. John P. J. Kelly Regarding Non—Infringement
`of United States Patent Nos. 5,191,573 and 5,966,440
`
`Exhibit 4149
`
`Virgin Digital Shuts Down, Sept. 24, 2007
`
`Exhibit 4150
`
`AOL, Now Focused on Free, Sells Its Paid lVIusic Service, Jan.13,
`2007.
`
`Exhibit 4151
`
`Walmart Closing Online Music Store, Aug. 10, 2011
`
`Exhibit 4152
`
`Itunes’ Success Revolutionizes lVIusic Business
`
`Exhibit 4153
`
`iTunes Music Store Sells Over One Million Songs in First W’eek,
`
`iv
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 5, 2003
`
`Case CB1\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4154
`
`April 26, 2013 Email S. Callagy to D. Cohen
`
`Exhibit 4155
`
`Declaration of Arthur Rangel
`
`Exhibit 4156
`
`Declaration of Megan F. Raymond
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4157
`
`Private Placement lVIemorandum, April 27, 1999, SightSound.com
`
`Exhibit 4158
`
`Two Year Expansion Plan for Virtual Records
`
`Exhibit 4159
`
`Exhibit 4160
`
`SightSound Technologies Confidential Offering Memorandum,
`Allen & Company LLC
`
`April 12, 2000 Memorandum from Alex Lepore to Files Re:
`Company Stock Valuation
`
`Exhibit 4161
`
`Business Plan for Digital Sight/Sound, Inc.
`
`Exhibit 4162
`
`November 30, 1993 Letter from Ansel M. Schwartz to Arthur Hair
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4163 Prospectus, Digital Sight/Sound (August 15, 1997)
`
`Now showing at a computer near you, News Tribune (lVIay 28,
`Exhibit 4164
`
`2000)
`
`Deposition Transcript ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. V. SightSound
`Exhibit 4165
`
`Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023, lV‘Iarch 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 4166
`
`Exhibit 4167
`
`Exhibit 4168
`
`Exhibit 4169
`
`Redacted Version of Plaintiff SightSound Technologies, LLC’s
`Expert Report ofJohn Snell On Validity, 6/5/13
`
`Exhibit 9 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. V.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`March 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 10 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`March 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 11 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`lVIarch 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 4170
`
`Exhibit 12 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`Si htSound Technolo'es, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`March 6, 2014
`
`Case CB1\12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4171
`
`Exhibit 4172
`
`Exhibit 4173
`
`Exhibit 13 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Teclmologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`March 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 14 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`March 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 15 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`March 6, 2014
`
`Exhibit 4174
`
`Exhibit 16 of the Deposition ofJohn Snell in Apple Inc. v.
`SightSound Technologies, LLC, Nos. CBM 2013—00020, —0023,
`
`March 6, 2014
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4175
`
`Exhibit 4176
`
`Exhibit 4177
`
`Exhibit 4178
`
`Exhibit 4179
`
`Exhibit 4180
`
`Exhibit 4181
`
`Exhibit 4182
`
`Exhibit 4183
`
`Robin Raskin, Telecomputing: Shopping in Electronic Stores: Sick
`of Crowds? Tied Up At \Vork? Want to Compare Prices? Go
`Online and Browse, Family Coli¢11fing, Vol. 3, No. 1 1 (November
`1985)
`
`James Capparell, Three times as much Antic Software now on
`CompuServe, ANTIC Tbe Afafl' Rem/(rte (April 1988)
`
`Richard Mansfield, Editor’s Notes, Congo/lie, Vol. 9, No. 3, Issue 82
`(IVIarch 1987)
`
`Rodney 1\/Iitchell, Jr., Conjuring up data over CATV, Network
`World, Inc. (February 2, 1987)
`
`Florence Fabricant, How Telephone Orders Deliver The Goods,
`The New York Times (l\/Iarch 4, 1987)
`
`Shiela Toomey, Like To Shop At Home? This Is For You All Need
`Is A TV, Phone And Credit Card Or Checks That Don’t Bounce,
`Anchorage Daily News (September 13, 1987)
`
`Betsy Lamrnerding, Shopping By TV A Big Turn—On For Many
`Buyers, Akron Beacon Journal (Ianuary 25, 1987)
`
`iTunes: You’ve never been so easily entertained, iTunes (lVIarch 17,
`201 4), http: / /www.apple.com/itunes /
`
`iTunes: iTunes looks and sounds better than ever., iTunes (lVIarch
`17, 2014), http: / /www.apple.com/itunes / features/
`
`Exhibit 4184
`
`FAQs: For Podcast Fans, iTunes (lVIarch 17, 2014),
`
`vi
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`http: / /WWW.apple.com/itunes/podcasts/fanfaqhtrnl
`
`Case CB1\12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4185
`
`iTunes: Give the gift of iTunes, iTunes (lVIarch 18, 2014),
`http: / /wwwnapplecom/itunes /gifts/
`
`iTunes Store Allowance, iTunes Support (l\/Iarch 17, 2014),
`http: / / support.apple.com/kb/HT21 05
`
`Rush Jones, Aggregation and Aggravation — Mcropayments 2013,
`PaymentsViews (August 16, 2013),
`http: / /paymentsviews.com/201 3 /08 / 1 6/aggregation—and—
`aggravation—micropayments—201 3/
`
`Marek Maurizio, Payment Systems, “Winter 2011,
`http:/ /WWW.dsi.unive.it/ ~marek/files/09.5°/020—
`°/020payment%20systems.pdf
`
`Apple and Pepsi to Give Away 100 Million Free Songs, Apple
`Press Info (October 16, 2003),
`http: / /WWW.apple.com/pr/library/2003/ 10/ 16Apple—and—Pepsi—
`to—Give—Away— 1 00—Million—Free—Songs.html
`
`Coca—Cola & Apple Team Up on Major Music Promotions in
`Europe, Apple Press Info (August 2, 2006),
`https: / /WWW.apple.com/pr/library/2006/08/02Coca—Cola—Apple—
`Team—Up—on—NIajor—lVIusic—Promotions—in—Europe.html
`
`iTunes lVlusic Store Now Accepts PayPal, Apple Press Info
`(December 10, 2004),
`http: / /wwwnapplecom/pr/library/2004/ 12/ 10iTunes—Music—
`Store—Now—Accepts—PayPal.html
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4186
`
`Exhibit 4187
`
`Exhibit 4188
`
`Exhibit 4189
`
`Exhibit 4190
`
`Exhibit 4191
`
`Exhibit 4192
`
`United States Patent No. 3,920,908
`
`Exhibit 4193
`
`United States Patent No. 4,759,060
`
`Exhibit 4194
`
`A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age, US. Dept. of
`Commerce (Sept. 2004),
`http: / /W’WW’.11tia.dOC.gov/ files /ntia/editor_uploads/NationOnline
`Broadband04_flles/NationOnlineBroadband04.pdf
`
`Exhibit 4195
`
`Amy Harmon, lVIusic Industry in Global Fight on Web Copies,
`NYTimes.com, (October 7, 2002),
`http: / /www.mytimescom/2002/ 10/07/us/music—industry—in—
`
`global—fight—on—web—copies.htmlPPagewantedZall&src=pm
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case CBl\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. Form 10—K, Fiscal year ending September
`24, 2005, SEC.gov (l\/Iarch 18, 2014),
`http: / /www.5ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/3201 93/0001 10465905
`058421 /a05—20674_1 10k.htm
`
`Brad King, Napster’s Assets Go for a Song, Wired (Nov. 28, 2002),
`http: / /wwwnwired. com/entertainment/music/news/2002/ 1 1 / 566
`33
`
`Jeff Leeds, Grokster Calls It Quits on Sharing Music Files,
`NYTimes.com (Nov. 8, 2005),
`http: / /WWW.nytimes.com/2005/ 1 1 /08/technology/08grokster.ht
`ml?_r=0
`
`Apple Launches the iTunes Music Store, Apple Press Info (April
`28, 2003), https: / /WWW.apple.com/pr/library/2003 /04/28Apple—
`Launches—the—iTunes—lV'Iusic—Store.html
`
`Federal Communications Commission, Llaking the Connections,
`Communications History (Nov. 21, 2005),
`http: / /transition.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/making—
`connectionshtml
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 4196
`
`Exhibit 4197
`
`Exhibit 4198
`
`Exhibit 4199
`
`Exhibit 4200
`
`Exhibit 4201
`
`Exhibit 4202
`
`Exhibit 4203
`
`Exhibit 4204
`
`
`
`Marc Fisher, Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After
`Personal Use, The \Vashington Post (Dec. 30, 2007),
`http: / /WWW.Washingtonpost.com/wp—
`dyn/content/article/2007/ 12/28/AR2007122800693.html.
`
`RIAA Threatens to Sue Hundreds for Illegal File—Sharing,
`FoxNews.com (Iune 26, 2003), available at
`http://Www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90403,00.html;
`
`Ruth Schubert, Tech-Savvy Getting lVIusic for a Song; Industry
`Frustrated That Internet hiakes Free IVIusic Simple, Seattle Post—
`Intelligencer, Feb. 10, 1999
`
`Sam Costello, Court Orders Napster to Stay ShutAppeals court
`rejects company’s request to overturn shutdown order,
`PCWorld.com (lVIar. 25, 2002) ,
`http: / /wwwpcworldcom/article/9 1 1 44/article .html
`
`Exhibit 4205
`
`Sarah NIcBride and Ethan Smith, Music Industry to Abandon 1\Iass
`Suits, The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 19, 2008),
`http: / /online.wsj .com/article/SB 1 22966038836021 137.html
`
`Exhibit 4206
`
`Stan Liebowitz, File Sharing: Creative Destruction or Just Plain
`
`viii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case CB1\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4207
`
`Destruction?, 49 Journal of Law & Economics 1, 13—17 (April
`2006)
`
`The RIAA: “The Piracy Rate Is Growing”, Bloomberg
`Businessweek lVIagazine (Llay 12, 2002),
`http: / /W\W¥.businessweek.com/ stories /2002—05—12/the—riaa—the—
`pirac 7—rate—is—growing
`
`Exhibit 4208
`
`Larry Sarisky, “Will Removable Hard Disks Replace the Floppy?,”
`ije Magazine, Vol. 8, Number 3 (l\»Iarch 1983)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4209
`
`United States Patent No. 4,567,359
`
`Exhibit 4210
`
`United States Patent No. RE32,1 15
`
`Exhibit 421 1
`
`United States Patent No. 5,966,440
`
`Exhibit 4212
`
`United States Patent No. 5,561,670
`
`Exhibit 4213
`
`United States Patent No. 6,453,355
`
`Exhibit 4214
`
`United States Patent No. 6,538,665
`
`Exhibit 4215
`
`United States Patent No. 6,714,984
`
`Exhibit 4216
`
`United States Patent No. 6,717,952
`
`Exhibit 4217
`
`United States Patent No. 6,829,648
`
`Exhibit 4218
`
`United States Patent No. 6,850,256
`
`Exhibit 4219
`
`United States Patent No. 7,007,062
`
`Exhibit 4220
`
`United States Patent No. 7,191,242
`
`Exhibit 4221
`
`United States Patent No. 7,319,761
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4222 United States Patent No. 7,320,069
`
`Exhibit 4223
`
`United States Patent No. 7,366,788
`
`Exhibit 4224
`
`United States Patent No. 7,478,323
`
`Exhibit 4225
`
`United States Patent No. 7,650,570
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case CB1\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4239 United States Patent No. 7,962,505
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4240
`
`United States Patent No. 7,966,362
`
`Exhibit 4247
`
`United States Patent No. 8,196 214
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 4248
`
`United States Patent No. 8,214,315
`
`Case CBl\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4249
`
`United States Patent No. 8,255,815
`
`Exhibit 4250
`
`United States Patent No. 8,261,246
`
`Exhibit 4251
`
`Exhibit 4252
`
`Exhibit 4253
`
`Apple \Vins 2002 Technical GRAB/MY Award, Apple Press Info
`(February 26, 2002),
`http: / /www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/02/26Apple—Wins—2002—
`Teclmical—GRAWY—Awardhtml
`
`May Wong, Apple’s iPod in Short Supply for Holidays, Associated
`Press Online, LexisNexis (Dec. 18, 2004)
`
`Andrew Zipern, Technology Briefing — Software: Alliance Will
`Acquire Liquid Audio, NYTimes.com (June 14, 2002),
`http: / /www.11ytimes.com/2002/06/ 1 4/business/technology—
`briefing—software—alliance—will—acquire—liquid—audio.html
`
`Exhibit 4254
`
`Barry Willis, AT&T’s a2b music Joins the Online Stampede,
`Stereophile.com, http: / /www. Stereophile.com/news / 10133/
`(March 29, 1998)
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4255
`
`Declaration ofJeff Robbin
`
`Exhibit 4256
`
`Declaration of Lawrence Kenswil
`
`Exhibit 4257
`
`Declaration of lV‘Iarco Mazzoni
`
`Exhibit 4258
`
`Declaration of Tom Weyer
`
`Exhibit 4259
`
`Exhibit 4260
`
`Exhibit 4261
`
`Liquid audio, available at
`http: / /www.crunchbase.com/company/liquid—audio (last visited
`Mar. 20, 2014)
`
`Mchael Stroud, Big Hopes for Hollywood Net Film, W'iredcom,
`http: / /www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2000/03/ 35076
`(March 23, 2000)
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. No. 56) entered in SightSound
`Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11—cv—01292—
`DWA (Western District of Pennsylvania)
`
`Exhibit 4262
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. John P. J. Kelly In Support Of Apple
`Inc.’s Petition For Covered Business Method Patent Review Of
`
`United States Patent No. 5,191,573 Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. \ 321,
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Case CB1\»12013—00020
`
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Exhibit 4263
`
`Declaration of Roberto J. Gonzalez
`
`Exhibit 4264
`
`Declaration of Flora D. Elias—Lfique
`
`Exhibit 4265
`
`Declaration of Lauren N. Robinson
`
`Exhibit 4266
`
`Declaration of Ching—Lee Fukuda
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4267
`
`Sandeep Junnarkar, 02b Music team leave: ATc’fTfor Rec¢mm/,
`CNET, http: / /news.cnet.com/a2b—rnusic-team—leaves—att—for-
`reciprocal/21 00—1023_3—226006.html (lVIay 1 8, 1999)
`
`Exhibit 4268
`
`Declaration of lVIichael P. Duffey
`
`Exhibit 4269
`
`Exhibit 4270
`
`Proposed Protective Order, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide at
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc’s First Set of Objections to Patent Owner
`SightSound Technologies LLC’s Exhibits, dated January 10, 2014
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”), respectfully submits this Motion to
`
`Exclude pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64, and Scheduling Order §4(b) (Dkt.
`
`12; 26; 28). As an initial matter, Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board, sitting
`
`as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine
`
`and assign the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented by both
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner SightSound Technologies LLC. (“Patent Owner”) in this
`
`patentability trial without the need for formal exclusion. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Guenthner,
`
`395 F. Supp. 2d 835, 842 n.3 (D. Neb. 2005) (admitting expert testimony over
`
`objections; “Trial courts should be more reluctant to exclude evidence in a bench trial
`
`than a jury trial. . . . [E]vidence should be admitted and then sifted [and] the trial court
`
`is presumed to consider only the competent evidence and to disregard all evidence
`
`that is incompetent”; “‘the better course’ is to ‘hear the testimony, and continue to
`
`sustain objections when appropriate’”; “[T]he court has admitted the testimony . . .
`
`and has accorded it appropriate weight.” (citations omitted)); Builders Steel Co. v.
`
`Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 179 F.2d 377, 379 (8th Cir. 1950) (vacating Tax Court
`
`decision for exclusion of competent and material evidence; “In the trial of a nonjury
`
`case, it is virtually impossible for a trial judge to commit reversible error by receiving
`
`incompetent evidence . . . . On the other hand, a trial judge who, in the trial of a
`
`nonjury case, attempts to make strict rulings on the admissibility of evidence, can
`
`easily get his decision reversed by excluding evidence which is objected to, but which,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`on review, the appellate court believes should have been admitted.”). Petitioner
`
`accordingly submits that it is, as a general matter, better for the Board to have before
`
`it a complete record of the evidence submitted by the parties than to exclude
`
`particular pieces of it and thereby risk improper exclusion that could later be assigned
`
`as error. See, e.g., Builders Steel, 379; Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224
`
`(8th Cir. 1942) (finding NLRB’s refusal to receive testimonial evidence amounted to a
`
`denial of due process; “One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility
`
`of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received, and,
`
`since he will base his findings upon the evidence which he regards as competent,
`
`material and convincing, he cannot be injured by the presence in the record of
`
`testimony which he does not consider competent or material. . . . [I]f evidence was
`
`excluded which [the reviewing] court regards as having been admissible, a new trial or
`
`rehearing cannot be avoided.”). See also, e.g., Samuel H. Moss, Inc. v. FTC, 148 F.2d 378,
`
`380 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 734 (1945) (observing that, “if the case was to be
`
`tried with strictness, the examiner was right [but w]hy [the examiner] or the
`
`Commission’s attorney should have thought it desirable to be so formal about the
`
`admission of evidence, we cannot understand. Even in criminal trials to a jury it is
`
`better, nine times out of ten, to admit, than exclude evidence . . . [W]e take this
`
`occasion to point out the danger always involved in conducting such a proceeding in
`
`such a spirit, and the absence of any advantage in depriving either the Commission or
`
`ourselves of all evidence”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`At the same time, however, Petitioner recognizes that this trial is an early
`
`example of a new set of proceedings. Thus, to the extent that the Board intends to
`
`apply the Federal Rules of Evidence strictly in these proceedings, cf. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48612, 48616 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“42.5(a) and (b) permit administrative patent judges
`
`wide latitude in administering the proceedings to balance the ideal of precise rules
`
`against the need for flexibility to achieve reasonably fast, inexpensive and fair
`
`proceedings”), Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s testimonial
`
`submissions from its purported expert witness, John Snell—in particular, at least
`
`Sections VII and IX of EX21531—do not meet these standards, and are so thoroughly
`
`infected with basic violations of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 that they should be
`
`excluded, together with any reference to or reliance on the foregoing in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Dkt. 38). Petitioner’s objections to this Exhibit were previously
`
`set forth in Petitioner’s First Set of Objections, served January 10, 2014 pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), see MX4469 § VII, and are further explained below pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I. Legal Standard
`
`Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which applies to this proceeding (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62), governs the admissibility of expert testimony and states: “A witness
`
`
`1 Exhibits are referenced “EX” or, for motion exhibits, “MX”; abbreviations are
`
`defined in the Petition (“Pet.,” Dkt. __), and emphases are added.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
`
`may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
`
`evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts
`
`or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the
`
`expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” F.R.E.
`
`702. The proponent of expert testimony must demonstrate admissibility by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579, 592 n.10 (1993), and Patent Owner has failed to meet this burden.
`
`II. Mr. Snell is Not Qualified to Opine Under F.R.E. 702
`
`The declaration of SightSound’s witness John Snell (EX2153) contains
`
`numerous opinions that should be excluded as failing the basic requirements of Rule
`
`702. To begin with, Mr. Snell is not an expert in the pertinent subject matter qualified
`
`to provide certain of the opinions contained in Exhibit 2153 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 he is not sufficiently
`
`knowledgeable in the topics addressed in Sections VII and IX, which generally
`
`concern, inter alia, the alleged commercial success of the patented invention at issue
`
`and the variables that help explain why SightSound’s electronic store failed while the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`iTunes Music Store (“iTMS”) succeeded.2 F.R.E. 702. Exhibit 2153 also fails to
`
`provide sufficient underlying facts or data upon which the statements contained
`
`therein could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702 (see also F.R.E. 703-705).
`
`For example, there is no rationale or basis for Mr. Snell’s assertion that the “[t]he
`
`ITMS [sic] . . . is Co-Extensive with the Claims of the Patents [sic]” (see EX2153,
`
`Section IX(C) & ¶ 98) as required by Rule 702 (see also F.R.E. 703-705). Indeed, on
`
`this topic, as on many others, Mr. Snell admitted at deposition that he had not
`
`considered, and was not even aware of, the basic pertinent facts. Mr. Snell’s opinions
`
`applying unstated, unsupported and unsupportable claim construction positions, as
`
`well as his opinions contradicting statements made by the named inventor to the Patent
`
`Office regarding pertinent terms, are equally baseless and must also be excluded.3
`
`A. No Basis for Opinion That User Interfaces Of SightSound’s
`Electronic Store and iTMS Are Only Insignificantly Different
`
`
`
`The Board should exclude, as lacking adequate basis under Rule 702, Mr.
`
`Snell’s opinion that the user interfaces of SightSound.com and iTMS are only
`
`2 Mr. Snell is additionally not qualified to provide opinions regarding the beliefs of
`
`“content producers,” “content holders,” or the market for digital music. EX2153 ¶¶
`
`59, 62, 63, 71; see F.R.E. 702.
`
`3 Petitioner does not undertake to catalog here all of the errors in Mr. Snell’s opinions
`
`(see generally Dkt. 49 (Petitioner’s Reply)), but rather those failings that are so
`
`fundamental under Rule 702 as to warrant outright exclusion.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`insignificantly different. See EX2153 ¶ 101. During deposition, Snell admitted that
`
`he had no basis for that opinion. See F.R.E. 702 (requiring that “(b) the testimony is
`
`based on sufficient facts or data; … and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
`
`methods to the facts of the case”).
`
`For example, Mr. Snell had done nothing to investigate the features of the
`
`SightSound.com electronic store user interface other than look at old screen shots.
`
`EX4165 (Snell Tr.) 127:20-128:11; EX4167-69 (Depo. Ex. 9-10). Even as to those old
`
`screen shots, Snell did not believe he had looked at them in connection with these
`
`CBM proceedings. EX4165 126:9-127:19; EX4167-69. And he could not discern
`
`from those screen shots what happened when a user clicked on the displayed buttons.
`
`Id.; EX4165 177:4-178:24. Nor did he do anything to find out: he did not know whether
`
`the system used for SightSound’s electronic store still existed; he did not know that
`
`SightSound had destroyed it; he never asked what happened to it; he did not ask
`
`SightSound’s Mr. Hair or Mr. Sander what user interfaces that system deployed; and
`
`in fact had neither spoken to Hair or Sander on any subject, nor sought to do so.
`
`EX4165 177:4-178:24, 182:13-19, 220:3-16; EX4167-69.
`
`In deposition, Mr. Snell also was shown a variety of iTMS features, and asked
`
`whether the SightSound.com system had comparable features—but he did not know.
`
`Specifically, using iTMS screen shots, Mr. Snell was shown the following features: the
`
`five-star rating system, plot summaries, multiple trailers for a given movie, cast and
`
`crew lists (for movies), editor’s notes, “viewers also bought” lists, “more from these
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`actors” lists, movie bundles (groups of movies at a volume discount), pre-ordering,
`
`lists of music videos by the band being viewed, lists of movies and books about the
`
`band being viewed, concert tour information for the band being viewed, the “genius”
`
`recommendation feature, the song-by-song “Popularity” rating, “iTunes Match,”
`
`“Mastered For iTunes” (which connotes that the music has been optimized, quality-
`
`wise, for playback on the iTMS— EX4165 200:6-201:12), “artist info” (which
`
`provides a several paragraph biography of the band), and reviews from “Rotten
`
`Tomatoes.” Mr. Snell did not know whether SightSound’s electronic store had any of
`
`these features, but admitted that none of them was evident from the screen shots that
`
`he had viewed. EX4165 163:11-186:3; 196:5-207:22; 208:19-212:17; EX4169-71
`
`(Depo. Ex.11-13).
`
`Mr. Snell also admitted he had no basis for opining as to whether any of these features was
`
`important to consumers, and therefore to commercial success. In contrast to Apple’s
`
`commercial success expert, Mr. Kenswil, who spent his career on the transactional
`
`side of the music business (EX4256 ¶¶ 5-18), Mr. Snell is an engineer who focuses on
`
`technology, but is neither informed nor interested in commercial issues. As Mr. Snell
`
`put it, when answering whether these differences help to explain why SightSound’s
`
`electronic store failed and iTMS succeeded, “I’m not a businessperson. I’m not a financial
`
`analyst. So I think these are questions you want to ask someone who is a financial analyst here. I’m
`
`not a salesman. My expertise is in the engineering and the computer side. I understand a lot about
`
`the music industry, but, again, I’m not a financial analyst. I’m not a sales expert.” EX4165
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`213:14-214:14. See F.R.E. 702 (requiring that “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or
`
`other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine a fact in issue”).
`
`Because it not only lacks factual basis, but affirmatively flies in the face of the
`
`facts, and because Mr. Snell lacks the commercial expertise needed to opine on issues
`
`of commercial success, the Board should exclude Mr. Snell’s opinion that the user
`
`interfaces of SightSound.com and the iTunes Music Store are only insignificantly
`
`different, including in particular EX2153 ¶ 101.
`
`B. No Basis for Opinion That iTMS is “Co-Extensive” With The
`Challenged Patent Claims
`
`
`
`Although Mr. Snell’s declaration states the opinion that iTMS is “co-extensive”
`
`with the challenged patent claims, e.g., EX2153 § IX.C, ¶¶ 89, 97, 98, that opinion
`
`must be excluded because, in deposition, Mr. Snell admitted he did not know the meaning of
`
`“co-extensive.” To show co-extensiveness, Patent Owner must show that iTMS does
`
`not embody inventions other than the invention of the Claims. See Demaco Corp. v. F.
`
`Von Langsdorff Licensing, Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392-93 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Rambus Inc. v.
`
`Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 597, 601-03 (N.D. Cal. 2008). In deposition,
`
`when asked whether a given product would be “co-extensive” with a patent claim if
`
`that product inf
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
