`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`Case CBM2014-001121
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2014-00113 has been consolidated with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................................ 1
`II. Patent Owner Smartflash Timely Objected to Petitioner’s Exhibits ................... 1
`III. Argument .......................................................................................................... 1
`A. Exhibit 1002 is Inadmissible Other Evidence of the Content of a
`Writing, Irrelevant, and Cumulative. ........................................................ 2
`B. Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1009, 1019, 1027, 1028, and 1029 are Uncited and
`thus are Irrelevant. ..................................................................................... 3
`C. Exhibits 1006, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1017 and 1020 are Not Alleged to be
`Invalidating Prior Art and thus are Irrelevant. .......................................... 4
`D. Exhibits 1016 and 1018 (a/k/a 1118) are not the Basis for any Invalidity
`Grounds for Which CBM2014-00112/113 was Initiated and thus are
`Irrelevant. .................................................................................................. 5
`E. Exhibit 1021 Lacks Foundation, is Unreliable, and Relies on Irrelevant
`Exhibits. ..................................................................................................... 5
`F. Certain Portions of Exhibit 1031 – (Deposition Testimony of Patent
`Owner’s Expert Dr. Katz) Should be Excluded as Eliciting Testimony
`Outside the Scope of this Proceeding and as Irrelevant. ........................... 9
`G. Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 are Cumulative and Subject to
`Exclusion for the Reasons Cited Above. ................................................ 13
`H. Exhibit 1121 is Cumulative and Subject to Exclusion for the Reasons
`Cited Above for Exhibit 1021. ................................................................ 14
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c), Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`moves to exclude Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1012, 1016,
`
`1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1027, 1028, and 1029. To the extent that Exhibits
`
`1101 – 1102 and 1122 – 1129 from CBM2014-00113, which was consolidated
`
`with this action, are considered to be in the record in this action, Patent Owner
`
`moves to exclude them as duplicative of their corresponding exhibits from
`
`CBM2014-00112. Patent Owner also moves to exclude Exhibit 1121 and portions
`
`of Exhibit 1031.
`
`II. Patent Owner Smartflash Timely Objected to Petitioner’s Exhibits
`Patent Owner Smartflash LLC timely objected to CBM2014-00112 Exhibits
`
`1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1012, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020,
`
`1021, 1027, 1028, and 1029, as well as CBM2014-00113 Exhibits 1101 – 1120,
`
`1122 – 1129 and 1121. Exhibit 2054. Patent Owner lodged objections to Exhibit
`
`1031 during the deposition of Dr. Jonathan Katz.
`
`
`
`III. Argument
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in
`
`Covered Business Method Review proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`A. Exhibit 1002 is Inadmissible Other Evidence of the Content of a
`Writing, Irrelevant, and Cumulative.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1002, (Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`Complaint) on grounds that it is: inadmissible other evidence of the content of a
`
`writing under FRE 1004; inadmissible under FRE 402 because it fails the test for
`
`relevance set forth in FRE 401; and, even if relevant, is cumulative evidence under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`The Petition cites Exhibit 1002 for the sole purpose of showing Patent
`
`Owner’s description of the subject matter of U.S. Patent 7,942,317 (“the ‘317
`
`Patent”) as “cover[ing] a portable data carrier for storing data and managing access
`
`to the data via payment information and/or use status rules” and “cover[ing] a
`
`computer network … that serves data and manages access to data by, for example,
`
`validating payment information.” Petition at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Petitioner
`
`does not need to cite to Exhibit 1002 to show the subject matter of the ‘317 Patent,
`
`however, because Exhibit 1001, the actual ‘317 Patent, is in evidence without
`
`objection. Under FRE 1004, other evidence of the content of a writing (here the
`
`‘317 Patent) is admissible if the original is lost, cannot be obtained, has not been
`
`produced, or the writing is not closely related to a controlling issue. None of those
`
`conditions apply here, given that the ‘317 Patent is in evidence and is the subject of
`
`the trial.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s description of the ‘317 Patent in Exhibit 1002 is not relevant
`
`to any of the issues here. Petitioner’s expert, Anthony J. Wechselberger’s
`
`Declaration, Exhibit 1021, (“first Wechselberger Declaration”) does not cite
`
`Exhibit 1002. The Board’s September 30, 2014 Decision – Institution of Covered
`
`Business Method Patent Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.208 (“PTAB Decision”), Paper 7,
`
`does not cite Exhibit 1002. Exhibit 1002 does not appear to make a fact of
`
`consequence in determining this action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without Exhibit 1002. As such, Exhibit 1002 does not pass the test for relevant
`
`evidence under FRE 401 and is not admissible per FRE 402.
`
`Even if Exhibit 1002 was found to be relevant, it should also be excluded
`
`under FRE 403 as cumulative of Exhibit 1001.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1009, 1019, 1027, 1028, and 1029 are Uncited
`and thus are Irrelevant.
`
`Neither the Petition, nor the Wechselberger Declaration, nor the PTAB
`
`Decision cite to Exhibit 1004 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221), Exhibit
`
`1005 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772), Exhibit 1009 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,754,654), Exhibit 1019 (JP Patent Application Publication No. H10-269289
`
`(translation)), Exhibit 1027 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720), Exhibit
`
`1028 (File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458), or Exhibit 1029 (File History
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598)(“the Uncited Exhibits”). The Uncited Exhibits do
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`not appear to make a fact of consequence in determining this action more or less
`
`probable than it would be without the Uncited Exhibits. As such, the Uncited
`
`Exhibits do not pass the test for relevant evidence under FRE 401 and are not
`
`admissible per FRE 402.
`
`C. Exhibits 1006, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1017 and 1020 are Not Alleged to
`be Invalidating Prior Art and thus are Irrelevant.
`
`Although cited, neither the Petition nor the Wechselberger Declaration assert
`
`that Exhibit 1006 (U.S. Patent No. 4,999,806), Exhibit 1007 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,675,734), Exhibit 1008 (U.S. Patent No. 4,878,245), Exhibit 1012 (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,103,392), Exhibit 1017 (PCT Application Publication No. WO 99/43136), or
`
`Exhibit 1020 (Eberhard von Faber, Robert Hammelrath, and Franz-Peter Heider,
`
`“The Secure Distribution of Digital Contents,” IEEE (1997))(“the Unasserted
`
`Exhibits”) are potentially invalidating prior art, either alone or in combination with
`
`any other reference. The PTAB Decision did not base any of its analysis on the
`
`Unasserted Exhibits. Thus, the Unasserted Exhibits do not appear to make a fact
`
`of consequence in determining this action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without the Unasserted Exhibits. As such, the Unasserted Exhibits do not pass the
`
`test for relevant evidence under FRE 401 and are not admissible per FRE 402.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`D. Exhibits 1016 and 1018 (a/k/a 1118) are not the Basis for any
`Invalidity Grounds for Which CBM2014-00112/113 was Initiated
`and thus are Irrelevant.
`
`The PTAB Decision did not adopt any of the proposed invalidity grounds
`
`based on Exhibit 1016 (European Patent Application, Publication No.
`
`EP0809221A2 (“Poggio”)), , Exhibit 1018 (a/k/a Exhibit 1118)(JP Publication No.
`
`H11-164058A (translation)(“Sato”)). Compare, PTAB Decision at 3-4 (chart
`
`showing grounds for challenging patentability including alleged prior art
`
`references Poggio and Sato), with PTAB Decision at 22 (instituting covered
`
`business method review on grounds other than alleged prior art references Poggio
`
`or Sato). Thus, Exhibits 1016 and 1018/1118 fail the test for relevant evidence
`
`because nothing in Exhibits 1016 and 1018/1118 make a fact of consequence in
`
`determining this action more or less probable than it would be without Exhibits
`
`1016 and 1018/1118. FRE 401(b). Being irrelevant evidence, Exhibits 1016 and
`
`1018/1118 are not admissible. FRE 402.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1021 Lacks Foundation, is Unreliable, and Relies on
`Irrelevant Exhibits.
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:
`RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
`A witness 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;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`(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.
`
`FRE 702. Patent Owner moves to exclude to Exhibit 1021, the first Wechselberger
`
`Declaration, in its entirety as the first Wechselberger Declaration does not state the
`
`relative evidentiary weight (e.g., substantial evidence versus preponderance of the
`
`evidence) used in arriving at his conclusions. “A finding is supported by
`
`substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the
`
`finding.” Q. I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee, 752 F.3d 1371, 1378-1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014)(citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 L.
`
`Ed. 126 (1938)). Proof by a “preponderance of the evidence” means “that it is
`
`more likely than not.” See, O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`449 Fed. Appx. 923, 928 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Board cannot assess whether Mr.
`
`Wechselberger’s opinion testimony is “the product of reliable principles and
`
`methods” or if Mr. Wechselberger “reliably applied the principles and methods to
`
`the facts of the case” given that Mr. Wechselberger did not disclose the standard
`
`against which he measured the quantum of prior art reference evidence in arriving
`
`at his opinions. Specifically, when Mr. Wechselberger concludes “in my opinion,
`
`the challenged claims would have been in the possession of or obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art from the disclosures in one or more of certain prior art
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`references” (Exhibit 1021 at ¶ 65) is he saying that he examined the prior art
`
`references and a reasonable mind would find sufficient evidence to support that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art had possession of the claims / would find the claims
`
`obvious (substantial evidence); OR is he saying that he examined the prior art
`
`references and it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in the art had
`
`possession of the claims / would find the claims obvious (preponderance of the
`
`evidence). There is no basis for the Board to know, because the first
`
`Wechselberger Declaration is silent on the standard he used. As such the first
`
`Wechselberger Declaration should be excluded because it lacks foundation. FRE
`
`602.
`
`In addition, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not sufficiently state
`
`the criteria used to assess whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have been motivated to modify a reference or combine two
`
`references. For example, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not state
`
`whether he considered evidence tending to show that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have made his proposed combination. Moreover, the first
`
`Wechselberger Declaration treats the components of the prior art as if one could
`
`mix and match any and all combinations and does not address sufficiently why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make specific
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`combinations rendering the ‘317 Patent obvious. As such it should be excluded
`
`because it lacks foundation. FRE 602.
`
`Additionally, the first Wechselberger Declaration does not prove that Mr.
`
`Wechselberger is an expert whose testimony is relevant to the issue of what is
`
`taught and/or suggested by the cited references. While Mr. Wechselberger may
`
`opine that he was “one of ordinary skill in the art,” he does not state that he is an
`
`expert in the types of methods and systems defined by the challenged claims, nor
`
`does he provide proof that he is an expert. Mr. Wechselberger does not show that
`
`he is “a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education” such that he “may testify in the form of an opinion.” FRE
`
`702. Thus, Mr. Wechselberger has not proven that his opinions are proper expert
`
`opinions upon which the PTAB can rely as opposed to inadmissible lay opinions.
`
`FRE 701 and 702.
`
`Certain specific paragraphs in the first Wechselberger Declaration should be
`
`excluded because they rely on exhibits that are irrelevant. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35,
`
`36, 38, 39, 40, and 43 contain testimony about the Unasserted Exhibits.
`
`Paragraphs 37, 44, 60 and 61 contain testimony about Exhibits 1016 and
`
`1018/1118, exhibits not relied upon by the PTAB to institute this proceeding. As
`
`such, Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 60 and 61 should be
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`excluded as not being relevant under FRE 401, and therefore being inadmissible
`
`under FRE 402.
`
`F. Certain Portions of Exhibit 1031 – (Deposition Testimony of
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Katz) Should be Excluded as Eliciting
`Testimony Outside the Scope of this Proceeding and as Irrelevant.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude portions of Exhibit 1031 (Katz Deposition
`
`Transcript) on grounds that the questions asked were outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Katz’s declaration and thus outside the scope of this proceeding as not in
`
`compliance with 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii) (“For cross-examination testimony, the
`
`scope of the examination is limited to the scope of the direct testimony”) and/or
`
`irrelevant.
`
`Exhibit 1031 36:10-37:11 – This line of questioning asked Dr. Katz whether
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that access to stored
`
`data could be restricted based on whether or how much payment had been made or
`
`based on payment validation. Patent Owner objected based on relevance and
`
`scope. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that “Dr. Katz repeatedly testified he
`
`is ‘not sure’ what a POSITA would have understood regarding” various subjects.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply To Patent Owner’s Response (“Petitioner’s Reply”), Paper 30,
`
`at 2. This testimony is not relevant because it relates to conditional access and
`
`none of the claims at issue relate to conditional access to stored data. Moreover,
`
`the question was asked in terms of “payment validation” and not “payment
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`validation data.” Because the question went to claims and terms outside the scope
`
`of the proceeding as instituted, it was beyond the scope of Dr. Katz’s declaration.
`
`The testimony should thus be excluded under FRE 402 and 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 70:1 – 73:9 – This testimony relates to whether the Stefik ‘235
`
`reference would exclude the use of a credit card and whether the credit card
`
`number could be payment data. Petitioner cites it to allege that Dr. Katz was “not
`
`sure” what a POSITA would have understood about passages of the cited prior art.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 2. Patent Owner objected on grounds of relevance and
`
`incomplete hypothetical. Even if Stefik ‘235 does not exclude the use of a credit
`
`card, that does not mean that it discloses it, which is the relevant issue. Further,
`
`with respect to Figure 3 transaction, the hypothetical is incomplete as to how a
`
`credit card would be used if it were used in a Figure 3 transaction, even assuming
`
`that it could be used. The testimony should thus be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`Exhibit 1031 110:7 – 111:4 – This testimony relates to Petitioner’s question
`
`“when does payment data happen vis-à-vis the receipt of content?” and Dr. Katz
`
`“understanding of what the differences are between the two embodiments
`
`described in the ‘221 Patent, Column 23, Lines 1 through 7.” Patent Owner
`
`objected to the prior on form and the latter on scope grounds. Petitioner cites the
`
`testimony in a litany of items about which Dr. Katz purportedly “was ‘not sure’”.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 19. But the first question is nonsensical because “payment
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`data” does not “happen.” The second question about the differences between two
`
`embodiments in the ‘221 Patent has not been linked to any relevant issue on which
`
`Dr. Katz provided his opinion in his Declaration. Thus, cross-examination on
`
`those differences was not within the scope of his direct testimony, and this
`
`testimony should thus be excluded under 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 114:3 – 116:13 – This testimony generally relates to whether
`
`there was anything that would have hindered a POSITA from implementing two
`
`alternative embodiments described in the ‘221 patent and whether the ‘221 Patent
`
`explains how the system would need to change to switch from one embodiment to
`
`the other. Patent owner objected to the scope of the questions. Petitioner cites the
`
`testimony to claim that “Dr. Katz’s own testimony supports a finding that a
`
`POSITA would not have been hindered from implementing either of the two
`
`embodiments… and that the ‘317 Patent itself does not explain any changes
`
`needed to switch the system between those two embodiments.” Petitioner’s Reply
`
`at 12. The subject testimony should be excluded because it goes to the issue of
`
`enablement, which is not an issue in this proceeding as instituted. Such questions
`
`were outside the scope of this proceeding, and Dr. Katz had not been asked to
`
`formulate an opinion on those subjects for his declaration. As Dr. Katz noted this
`
`subject “was not something that [he] thought about before. It wasn’t part of [his]
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`declaration.” Exhibit 1031 at 116:3-4. The testimony should be excluded as not
`
`being limited to the scope of the direct testimony. 37 CFR CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 124:10 – 128:11 – This testimony relates to whether certain
`
`things would be an example of, or constitute, “prepurchase processing.” Patent
`
`Owner objected on scope grounds. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that “Dr.
`
`Katz … was … ‘not sure’ whether various payment-related disclosures in Ginter
`
`would qualify as pre-purchase processing.” Petitioner’s Reply at 12. The problem,
`
`however, was with the questions, not Dr. Katz’s answers. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`never established a definition of what he meant by “prepurchase processing” and
`
`never asked for Dr. Katz’s understanding of that term. See Exhibit 1031 190:11-19
`
`where Dr. Katz indicated that he did not know what Petitioner’s counsel meant by
`
`“preusage processing” and “prepurchase processing.” As such, Dr. Katz was
`
`unable to answer the questions as presented. The testimony should be excluded as
`
`not being limited to the scope of the direct testimony. 37 CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`Exhibit 1031 145:6 – 146:8 – This testimony relates to a time stamp in the
`
`Poggio reference and how it “could be” used. Patent Owner objected on relevance
`
`grounds. Petitioner cites the testimony to allege that Dr. Katz was “not sure in
`
`Poggio what a time stamp is used for.” Petitioner’s Reply at 20. The only relevant
`
`issue is what Poggio disclosed the timestamp is used for, not irrelevant issues of
`
`what a timestamp could be used at an unknown time (e.g., now) and by an
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`unknown system (e.g., a non-prior art system). This testimony is not relevant
`
`under FRE 401 and should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`Exhibit 1031 152:7 – 156:12 – This testimony is purported to relate to
`
`“POSITA’s understanding of passages of the ‘317 Patent.” Petitioner’s Reply at 2.
`
`Patent Owner objected on grounds of scope. Review of the cited passage however
`
`shows that it relates to claim 26 of the ‘598 Patent. The ‘317 Patent is not
`
`mentioned. As such, the testimony is not relevant to this proceeding under FRE
`
`401, and should be excluded as inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`G. Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 are Cumulative and Subject to
`Exclusion for the Reasons Cited Above.
`
`Exhibits 1101-1129 were filed in CBM2014-00113. CBM2014-00112 was
`
`consolidated with CBM2014-00113 (PTAB Decision at 22), the PTAB ordered
`
`that all further filings in the consolidated proceedings be made only in CBM2014-
`
`00112 and the CBM2014-00113 be terminated (PTAB Decision at 23). Exhibits
`
`1101-1120 and 1122-1129 in CBM2014-00113 are identical to Exhibits 1001-1020
`
`and 1022-1029 submitted in CBM2014-00112. The PTAB Decision recognized
`
`this duplication of exhibits and referred only to the exhibits filed in CBM2014-
`
`00112. PTAB Decision at 3, n. 2. To the extent still in the record, Patent Owner
`
`moves to exclude to Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122-1129 under FRE 403 as
`
`needless cumulative evidence duplicative of Exhibits 1001-1020 and 1022-1029.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`In the event that the PTAB does not exclude Exhibits 1101-1120 and 1122- 1129
`
`in their entirety as needless cumulative evidence, Patent Owner moves to exclude
`
`Exhibits 1102, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1112, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,
`
`1120, 1127, 1128, and 1129 for the reasons set forth above for their corresponding
`
`Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1012, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019,
`
`1020, 1027, 1028, and 1029.
`
`H. Exhibit 1121 is Cumulative and Subject to Exclusion for the
`Reasons Cited Above for Exhibit 1021.
`
`Exhibit 1121, the second Wechselberger Declaration, was filed in
`
`CBM2014-00113 and should be excluded for the same substantive reasons set
`
`forth above for Exhibit 1021: it does not state the relative evidentiary weight (e.g.,
`
`substantial evidence versus preponderance of the evidence) used in arriving at his
`
`conclusions; it does not sufficiently state the criteria used to assess whether one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to
`
`modify a reference or combine two references; it treats the components of the prior
`
`art as if one could mix and match any and all combinations and does not address
`
`sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make
`
`specific combinations rendering the ‘317 Patent obvious; and it does not prove that
`
`Mr. Wechselberger is an expert whose testimony is relevant to the issue of what is
`
`taught and/or suggested by the cited references.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`In addition, certain specific paragraphs in the second Wechselberger
`
`Declaration should be excluded because they rely on exhibits that are irrelevant.
`
`Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, and 44 contain testimony about the
`
`Unasserted Exhibits, as those are identified in CBM2014-00113. Paragraphs 37,
`
`45, 61, 63, and 68 contain testimony about Exhibits 1016 and 1018/1118, prior art
`
`references not relied upon by the PTAB to institute this proceeding. As such,
`
`Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 61, 63, and 68 should be excluded
`
`as not being relevant under FRE 401, and therefore being inadmissible under FRE
`
`402.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For these reasons, Patent Owner Smartflash, LLC respectfully requests that
`
`the Board exclude Exhibit 1002 as inadmissible other evidence of the content of a
`
`writing, irrelevant and cumulative; Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009,
`
`1012, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1027, 1028, and 1029 as irrelevant; Exhibit
`
`1021 and 1121 in their entirety as lacking foundation, unreliable, and relying on
`
`irrelevant exhibits; Exhibit 1021,¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 60 and 61
`
`as irrelevant; Exhibit 1121,¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 61, 63, and 68
`
`as irrelevant; Exhibits 1101 – 1120 and 1122 – 1129 (filed in CBM2014-00113,
`
`which was consolidated with this action) as cumulative; and portions of Exhibit
`
`1031 as outside the scope and irrelevant.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist
`
`Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS and
`
`Exhibit 2054 in CBM2014-00112 were served today, by agreement of the parties
`
`by emailing a copy to counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman (steven.baughman@ropesgray.com)
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com)
`Megan Raymond (megan.raymond@ropesgray.com)
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`
`
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist
`
`Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`