`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00106
`
`Patent 8,033,458
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF THE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF ANTHONY
`WECHSELBERGER CONCERNING PETITIONER’S PRODUCTS AND FOR
`COSTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` RESPONSES TO STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................ 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. THE OBJECTED TO TESTIMONY WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
`PROCEEDING ................................................................................................ 2
`
` STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 2
`
`
`IV. STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY IS INAPPROPRIATE ........................... 6
`
`V.
`
` SANCTIONS, ESPECIALLY MONETARY SANCTIONS, ARE
`INAPPROPRIATE .......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`For at least the reasons set forth below, Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Strike Portions of the Deposition Transcript of Anthony Wechselberger
`
`Concerning Petitioner’s Products and for Costs.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSES TO STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`The first two sentences are admitted. The last sentence is denied to
`
`the extent that it is not clear if Petitioner intends that sentence to mean “Petitioner
`
`requested that Patent Owner be ordered not to ask questions related to the
`
`operation of Petitioner’s products because [Petitioner believes] (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.”
`
`5. Admitted.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`8. Mr. Wechselberger provided his opinion on the obviousness of at least
`
`one challenged claim in the present proceeding (i.e., CBM2014-00106). See
`
`Exhibit 1021, page 00025 et seq.
`
`
`
`III. THE OBJECTED TO TESTIMONY WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
`
`PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`In its Motion, Petitioner argued that “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.”
`
`Motion at 6. It further clarified that “Petitioner seeks to strike ... Wechselberger
`
`Dep. 358:1-378:4. See Ex. 1030” (hereinafter “the Objected to Testimony”).
`
`Motion at 2. In support of such a request, Petitioner states “The Board’s rules are
`
`clear: “For cross-examination testimony, the scope of the examination is limited to
`
`the scope of the direct testimony.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii)).
`
`However, Petitioner misapprehends the “scope of the direct testimony” provided
`
`by Mr. Wechselberger.
`
`
`
`Mr. Wechselberger provided his opinion on the obviousness of at least one
`
`challenged claim in each of the four CBMs (CBM2014-00102, -00106, -00108 and
`
`-00112) for which he was being deposed. As set forth in Graham v. John Deere
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), obviousness is a question of law based on underlying
`
`factual findings, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art; and (4) objective considerations of nonobviousness. Id. at 17–18. Those
`
`four factors, however, are part of a single issue -- obviousness -- and cannot be
`
`separated out into individual parts such that a deponent can testify about some
`
`parts and be blocked from testifying about other parts at the discretion of the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`The use of objective considerations, which are sometimes referred to as
`
`“secondary considerations,” is discussed in In Re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride
`
`Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1075 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). In that case, the Federal Circuit held that “a fact finder ... may not defer
`
`examination of the objective considerations until after the fact finder makes an
`
`obviousness finding.” Id. at 1075 (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. 713
`
`F.2d 1530, 1538–39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“It is jurisprudentially inappropriate to
`
`disregard any relevant evidence on any issue in any case, patent cases included.
`
`Thus, evidence rising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’ must always
`
`when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.”)(citations
`
`omitted)). Indeed, the Federal Circuit held that “Many subsequent cases have
`
`expressly followed Stratoflex’s directive that courts consider all objective evidence
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`before reaching an obviousness conclusion” and provided a lengthy analysis
`
`describing more than half a dozen cases that did so. In Re Cyclobenzaprine at
`
`1076. Thus, Mr. Wechselberger’s direct testimony about obviousness of any of the
`
`challenged claims rendered testimony directed to objective considerations or
`
`“secondary considerations” directly relevant to and within the scope of Mr.
`
`Wechselberger’s direct testimony.
`
`In fact, a portion of the Objected to Testimony makes clear why Mr.
`
`Wechselberger did not explicitly perform a complete obviousness analysis
`
`including objective considerations and why Petitioner is so interested in having his
`
`testimony struck, Mr. Wechselberger admits he is not qualified to do so. In the
`
`Objected to Testimony, Mr. Wechselber testified:
`
`Q. ... If the App Store did embody at least one of the claims of
`
`the patents challenged in the 2014 CBM proceedings, how many apps
`
`would have to be sold in your opinion using the App Store to indicate
`
`commercial success of the claimed invention?
`
`A. I haven't considered that question before and I don't have an
`
`opinion about that today.
`
`Q. Is that an issue you could have considered when preparing
`
`your declarations in the 2014 CBM proceedings?
`
`MS. ROBINSON: Objection to form.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`A. I don't think I'm the kind of expert that's qualified to opine
`
`on that kind of a question.
`
`Exhibit 1030, 369:19 - 370:10 (on page 00014) (Emphasis added). Such testimony
`
`is clearly within the scope of whether he is an expert.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further cites Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299,
`
`1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2006) for the proposition that “Evidence of commercial
`
`success, or other secondary considerations, is only significant if there is a nexus
`
`between the claimed invention and the commercial success.”). Motion at 8.
`
`However, a number of Patent Owner’s questions were related to the nexus, so the
`
`Objected to Testimony was relevant for that reason as well. See Exhibit 1030,
`
`371:20 - 374:19, relating to the number of downloads and revenues. Additionally,
`
`Patent Owner’s period for discovery is not yet over, so Patent Owner also can
`
`prove nexus through other witnesses. In general, Petitioner confuses the standard
`
`for seeking or obtaining relevant information with the standard for proving
`
`nonobviousness. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “Evidence is
`
`relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining
`
`the action.”
`
`
`
`The Objected to Testimony is also within the scope of his direct testimony as
`
`Mr. Wechselberger alleges in paragraph 2 of his declaration (Exhibit 1021) that his
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`“areas of expertise include broadcast and broadband content distribution networks
`
`and communications infrastructures (Internet ...) ... [and] Internet technologies
`
`(including but not limited to delivering content via the Internet...),” such as are
`
`provided by the iTunes and App store systems about which he was questioned.
`
`Given that he was unable to answer questions about the operation of those systems,
`
`even when public documents were put in front of him to refresh his recollection on
`
`the operation of those systems, the Objected to Testimony also is proper rebuttal
`
`testimony to his direct testimony about his alleged “expertise.”
`
`
`
`IV. STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY IS INAPPROPRIATE
`
`Petitioner cites to the PTAB’s November 13, 2014 Order (Paper 14)
`
`(hereinafter “the first Discovery Order”) as showing that the “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.” (Emphasis added.) Motion at
`
`8. However, the Objected to Testimony is not additional discovery under 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.51(b)(2), but rather routine discovery under 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(1) for
`
`which no prior authorization is required as the Objected to Testimony is relevant
`
`and within the scope of the direct testimony. In short, the first Discovery Order
`
`related to the additional discovery of documents in Petitioner’s possession and did
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`not preclude Patent Owner from seeking routine discovery (e.g., through cross-
`
`examination testimony) or from searching out and finding relevant information
`
`from public sources. Thus, Petitioner cannot show that “Patent Owner[]
`
`attempt[ed] to evade [the first Discovery O]rder” or that any of the Objected to
`
`Testimony from Mr. Wechselberger “is an abuse of the discovery process.” Id. at
`
`8. As such, the testimony should not be struck.
`
`The Petitioner has not identified within the Objected to Testimony what
`
`questions Petitioner is seeking to strike. By citing to the testimony as a whole,
`
`Petitioner has effectively pushed the burden onto Patent Owner to guess at which
`
`questions Petitioner really wants to have struck. For example, the questions at
`
`374:7-8, are not directed to Petitioner’s products but to the issue of commercial
`
`success in general, and the questions and answers at 369:19 - 370:10 are directed to
`
`whether Mr. Wechselberger is a qualified expert at all.
`
`Moreover, the Motion does not seek to strike other questions about
`
`Petitioner’s products not in the Objected To Testimony, so there is no basis for
`
`finding that similar questions in the Objected To Testimony should be struck. For
`
`example, the following questions are not the subject of the Motion to Strike
`
`334:16-17 (“Q: Are you aware of the Apple iTunes system?”), 335:10 (“Q: Do you
`
`know how it operates?”), 335:20-21 (“Q: Are you aware of how the App Store by
`
`Apple operates?”) and 336:4-5 (“Q: Are you aware of how in app purchases work
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`for applications that utilize the App Store?”). By contrast, the following
`
`exemplary questions are the subject of the Motion to Strike: 359:5-7 (“Q: Are you
`
`aware of how built in products interact with the App Store to handle built in
`
`product delivery?”), 360:20-22 (“Q: So you don't have an understanding of how
`
`built in products are delivered using the Apple App Store?”), and 366:16-21 (“Q:
`
`Rather than going through this document section by section like we did for Exhibit
`
`2007, you do not have a recollection of how in app purchases worked in
`
`conjunction with the App Store from Apple either in the 2012 time frame or the
`
`2013 time frame; is that correct?”). Thus, the Motion to Strike should be denied on
`
`that basis as well.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`SANCTIONS, ESPECIALLY MONETARY SANCTIONS, ARE
`
`INAPPROPRIATE
`
`As the Objected to Testimony was properly within the scope of the direct
`
`testimony of Mr. Wechselberger, monetary sanctions for eliciting the testimony are
`
`inappropriate and should be denied.
`
`Even if monetary sanctions were appropriate, the Motion does not provide
`
`an accounting such that Patent Owner can respond to whether such alleged costs
`
`are reasonable. Footnote 4 of page 9 of the Motion states that “Should the Board
`
`so order, the parties can provide an accounting.” However, that accounting should
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`have been provided as part of Petitioner’s Motion in order to ensure compliance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. 42.1(2) which requires “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution
`
`of every proceeding.” By delaying providing an accounting, Petitioner has created
`
`the need for an additional round of briefing should the PTAB award sanctions.
`
`Petitioner’s request for sanctions should be denied on that basis alone.
`
`If the PTAB were to award sanctions, the sanctions should be limited to a
`
`subportion of the deposition transcript directed to the Objected to Testimony.
`
`That portion of the deposition transcript of Mr. Wechselberger is pages 358:1-
`
`378:4 (Exhibit 1030), but only the period from 2:33 PM to 3:19 PM (on the second
`
`day of Mr. Wechselberger’s deposition) corresponds to the portion during which
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel questioned Mr. Wechselberger. See Exhibit 1030, page
`
`00009 showing the start time on the condensed version of page 356 and page
`
`00016, showing the end time on the condensed version of page 375.
`
`To put the issue in perspective, having filed 21 CBM Petitions at a cost of
`
`approximately $600,000, Petitioner has seen fit to spend the Board’s and Patent
`
`Owner’s resources to decide and oppose four overlapping Motions to recover
`
`attorneys fees for at best approximately 45 minutes worth of questioning out of a
`
`deposition covering 2 days. Clearly, the overarching objective of “the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” is lost on Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion should be denied as to both its request to strike the
`
`Objected to Testimony and its request for sanctions.
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson &
`
`Gowdey, LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22203
`Telephone: (703) 894-6406
`Fax: (703) 894-6430
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
`
`DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER
`
`CONCERNING PETITIONER’S PRODUCTS AND FOR COSTS in CBM2014-
`
`00106 was served, by agreement of the parties, February 12, 2015 by emailing
`
`copies to counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Steven.Baughman@ropesgray.com
`Ching-Lee.Fukuda@ropesgray.com
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson &
`
`Gowdey, LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22203
`Telephone: (703) 894-6406
`Fax: (703) 894-6430
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`