`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2014-001061
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`______________________
`
`Before the Honorable JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M.
`PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
`DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER
`CONCERNING PETITIONER’S PRODUCTS AND FOR COSTS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and as authorized in the Board’s December 12,
`
`2014 Order (Paper 19), Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby moves to strike the
`
`portions of the deposition transcript of Anthony Wechselberger (Apple’s expert
`
`witness) involving questioning by Patent Owner’s counsel outside the scope of Mr.
`
`Wechselberger’s declaration—including, in particular, questions and answers about
`
`the operation of Petitioner’s products and related secondary considerations—and
`
`
`1 Case CBM2014-00107 has been consolidated with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`seeks an award of the associated costs of the deposition and of this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifically with respect to the transcript, Petitioner seeks to strike the following
`
`portions:
`
` 12/11/2014 Wechselberger Dep. 358:1-378:4. See Ex. 1030.2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION & RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The above Wechselberger transcript citations contain questions and answers
`
`outside the scope of Mr. Wechselberger’s declaration and thus outside the scope of
`
`proper deposition discovery in this matter—including questions and answers directed
`
`to Petitioner’s products. Mr. Wechselberger’s declaration (i.e., his direct witness
`
`
`2 Ex. 1030 contains excerpts from the Wechselberger transcript that, in addition to
`
`the portions Petitioner seeks to strike on pages 358-378, also includes pages 334-357
`
`so that the Board may consider, if it wishes, the context leading to the portions of the
`
`deposition that Petitioner seeks to strike from the record, including the transcription
`
`of the December 11 conference call with the Board. Pages 358:1-378:4—the portions
`
`Petitioner seeks to strike—were originally prepared as a separate transcript marked as
`
`“Redacted” based on potential concerns about confidentiality of the testimony that
`
`was expected to be elicited. However, based on the testimony actually elicited,
`
`Petitioner has determined that this portion of the transcript need not be filed under
`
`seal.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`testimony) that was submitted with the Petition in this proceeding 3 contained no
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony whatsoever as to Petitioner’s products—much less as to the operation of
`
`Petitioner’s products or any commercial success of the products. The Board’s rules
`
`explicitly state that, “[f]or cross-examination testimony, the scope of the examination
`
`is limited to the scope of the direct testimony.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii). The
`
`questions and answers on cross-examination at Mr. Wechselberger’s deposition
`
`directed to Petitioner’s products or related secondary considerations were outside the
`
`scope of Mr. Wechselberger’s direct testimony and were therefore improper.
`
`Accordingly, and as discussed further below, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board strike the above-identified portions of the Wechselberger transcript and award
`
`the requested costs to Petitioner.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On November 7, 2014, a teleconference was held between the Board
`
`and the parties. Patent Owner Smartflash LLC (“Patent Owner”) requested
`
`
`3 Petitioner submitted a declaration from Mr. Wechselberger in each of proceedings
`
`CBM2014-00102, -00106, -00108, and -00112, and his deposition that is the subject of
`
`this Motion was taken for purposes of discovery for all of these proceedings
`
`collectively. His declarations in the other proceedings also contained no testimony
`
`regarding Petitioner’s products. Accordingly, Petitioner is concurrently filing a similar
`
`Motion in each proceeding, as authorized by the Board in Paper 19.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`authorization to file a motion for additional discovery on Petitioner’s products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner sought this discovery as purportedly relevant to showing secondary
`
`considerations for the patent-at-issue—particularly, commercial success based on
`
`Patent Owner’s allegation that these products read on (i.e., infringe) the challenged
`
`claims. See Paper 14 at 3.
`
`2.
`
`In opposition to the requested authorization, Petitioner asserted, inter
`
`alia, that Patent Owner’s request would necessarily result in a “trial within a trial” to
`
`determine allegations of
`
`infringement for purposes of addressing secondary
`
`considerations based on Petitioner’s products. Petitioner also asserted that Patent
`
`Owner has not made a threshold showing of nexus between the challenged claims and
`
`alleged commercial success. Paper 14 at 3.
`
`3.
`
`The Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to move for
`
`additional discovery, explaining, inter alia, that “Patent Owner has not made a
`
`threshold showing as to infringement or nexus with commercial success.” Paper 14 at
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`On December 10 and 11, 2014, Patent Owner deposed Petitioner’s
`
`expert witness, Anthony Wechselberger, for this proceeding as well as for CBM2014-
`
`00102, -00108, and -00112. During the deposition, on December 11, at Petitioner’s
`
`request, a teleconference was held between the Board and the parties to address
`
`Petitioner’s objections to the scope of the questioning of Mr. Wechselberger.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`Petitioner requested that Patent Owner be ordered not to ask questions related to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operation of Petitioner’s products because (1) such questions were clearly outside the
`
`scope of the proceedings, (2) Mr. Wechselberger had not opined on the operation of
`
`Petitioner’s products in his declaration, and (3) secondary considerations had not been
`
`placed at issue in the proceeding. Paper 19 at 2.
`
`5.
`
`During the teleconference, Patent Owner argued that it should be
`
`allowed to ask questions about the operation of Petitioner’s products and alleged that
`
`(1) the challenged claims read on those products, (2) Mr. Wechselberger had
`
`submitted expert reports on Petitioner’s products in the related, pending district court
`
`litigation, and (3) the operation of Petitioner’s products is relevant to commercial
`
`success. Paper 19 at 2.
`
`6.
`
`The Board did not immediately order Patent Owner to discontinue
`
`asking Mr. Wechselberger questions about Petitioner’s products, but indicated during
`
`the call and memorialized in a subsequent order (Paper 19) that Petitioner was
`
`authorized to file a Motion to Strike (i.e., the instant Motion). The Board stated that
`
`the Motion to Strike could point to the pertinent questions and answers in the
`
`Wechselberger transcript relating to Petitioner’s products and explain why they are
`
`outside the proper scope of this proceeding. The Board explained that it “is
`
`extremely reluctant to broaden the scope of the instant proceedings significantly and
`
`delay the trial schedule by permitting discovery into the operation of Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`products.” The Board noted that discovery into Patent Owner’s allegations of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`commercial success “would require a trial within a trial on the issue of infringement,
`
`with associated evidence, arguments, and (potentially) declarations from Patent
`
`Owner, and then the same from Petitioner in response.” The Board explained that
`
`this would be “contrary to the goal of covered business method review to be an
`
`efficient, streamlined alternative to
`
`litigation, completed within one year of
`
`institution.” The Board further explained that it had already “denied Patent Owner’s
`
`request for authorization to file a Motion for Additional Discovery on Petitioner’s
`
`products,” and that “Patent Owner now attempts to elicit information through
`
`deposition that was denied to it as additional discovery.” Paper 19 at 3.
`
`7.
`
`The Board also stated that, if it is “persuaded that Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel sought information outside the proper scope of this proceeding, sanctions
`
`may include striking questions and answers that are not relevant, and ordering Patent
`
`Owner to pay the costs associated with the deposition.” Paper 19 at 4.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The portions of the Wechselberger transcript reflecting Patent Owner’s
`
`improper questioning concerning Petitioner’s products and related secondary
`
`considerations should be stricken from the record. The Board’s rules are clear: “For
`
`cross-examination testimony, the scope of the examination is limited to the scope of the
`
`direct testimony.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The scope of Mr. Wechselberger’s direct testimony is confined to the subject
`
`matter in his declaration, and Mr. Wechselberger clearly did not testify in his
`
`declaration about Petitioner’s products or related secondary considerations. Indeed,
`
`in attempting to justify its questioning during the December 11 conference call with
`
`the Board, Patent Owner never suggested that these topics were within the scope of
`
`Mr. Wechselberger’s direct testimony. Thus, cross-examination about Petitioner’s
`
`products or related secondary considerations is indisputably not allowed under Rule
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii). The Board need look no further and should strike the portions of the
`
`Wechselberger transcript identified above.
`
`Patent Owner nevertheless argued that it should be allowed to elicit testimony
`
`from Mr. Wechselberger at the deposition about Petitioner’s products because Patent
`
`Owner believes such testimony may be relevant to commercial success as part of a
`
`secondary considerations argument. See Paper 19 at 2. Patent Owner pointed to—
`
`and Petitioner is aware of—no exception to the rule limiting the scope of cross-
`
`examination simply because a party believes a particular line of questioning may be
`
`relevant to other issues that were not the subject of the deponent’s direct testimony.
`
`Nor has Patent Owner suggested any reason that—contrary to the prior November
`
`13 Order (Paper 14)—it should be allowed, without seeking the Board’s permission,
`
`to embark on an unjustified “trial within a trial” on alleged infringement. See Paper 19
`
`at 3; id. (noting that allowing the sought-after discovery would frustrate the Board’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`purpose of being “an efficient, streamlined alternative to litigation, completed within
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one year of institution”); Paper 14 at 3 (“We denied Patent Owner’s request for
`
`authorization to file a motion for additional discovery given that Patent Owner has
`
`not made a threshold showing as to infringement or nexus with commercial
`
`success.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(“Evidence of commercial success, or other secondary considerations, is only
`
`significant if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial
`
`success.”).
`
`Indeed, this questioning in the Wechselberger transcript is particularly
`
`inappropriate as the Board has already explicitly denied Patent Owner’s request to file
`
`a motion for additional discovery on the very type of evidence at issue in this Motion.
`
`See Paper 14 at 3; Paper 19 at 3. Patent Owner’s attempt to evade this order and
`
`demand the additional discovery anyway is an abuse of the discovery process. See
`
`Paper 19 at 2-3; 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a) (“The Board may impose a sanction against a
`
`party for misconduct, including: (1) Failure to comply with an applicable rule or order
`
`in the proceeding; . . . (5) Abuse of discovery; . . . (7) Any other improper use of the
`
`proceeding, including actions that . . . cause . . . an unnecessary increase in the cost of
`
`the proceeding.”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772
`
`(App’x D) (Aug. 14, 2012) (“[P]arty may move to terminate or limit the testimony on
`
`the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith . . . .”). Accordingly, not only
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`should the subject questions and answers from the Wechselberger transcript be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stricken from the record, but—as the Board warned Patent Owner was a possibility
`
`during the December 11 conference call (and memorialized in Paper 19) if it chose to
`
`proceed—Patent Owner should also be ordered to pay the costs associated with the
`
`improper questioning in the deposition, which Petitioner respectfully submits should
`
`include the costs associated with this Motion to address the improper questioning. See
`
`Paper 19 at 3-4 (“As we explained during the call, if we are persuaded that Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel sought information outside the proper scope of this proceeding,
`
`sanctions may include striking the questions and answers that are not relevant, and
`
`ordering Patent Owner to pay the costs associated with the deposition.”); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.12(b) (“Sanctions include entry of one or more of the following: . . . (4) An order
`
`precluding a party from requesting, obtaining, or opposing discovery; (5) An order
`
`excluding evidence; (6) An order providing for compensatory expenses, including
`
`attorney fees . . . .”).4
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board strike
`
`the above-identified portions of the Wechselberger transcript relating to questions
`
`and answers on Petitioner’s products and order Patent Owner to pay the costs
`
`
`4 Should the Board so order, the parties can provide an accounting.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`associated with the above-listed portions of the deposition and costs associated with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this Motion.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`January 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`One Metro Center, 700 12th St. – Ste. 900
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`P: 202-508-4606 / F: 202-383-8371
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 44,334
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`P: 212-596-9336 /F: 212-596-9000
`ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM – Floor 43, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00106
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PETITIONER’S MOTION
`
`TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF
`
`ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER CONCERNING PETITIONER’S PRODUCTS
`
`and accompanying exhibit were served on January 12, 2015, to the following Counsel
`
`for Patent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22203
`Telephone: (703) 894-6406
`Facsimile: (703) 894-6430
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`docket@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Darrell W. Stark
`Darrell W. Stark
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`