`________________________
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`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
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1002 .............................................. 1
`B.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1004 - 1005, 1009, 1019, ........... 2
`And 1027 - 1029 .............................................................................................. 2
`C.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, and
`1020 ....................................................................................................... 2
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1016 and 1018 .............................. 3
`D.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1021 .............................................. 3
`E.
`The Board Should Exclude Requested Portions of Exhibit 1031 ......... 4
`F.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1101-1129 ................................... 5
`G.
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner understands that “the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with
`
`administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate
`
`weight to the evidence presented in this trial, without resorting to formal exclusion
`
`that might later be held reversible error.” Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66, Final Written
`
`Decision (PTAB January 23, 2014)(citing S.E.C. v. Guenthner, 395 F. Supp. 2d
`
`835, 842 n.3 (D. Neb. 2005)). At the same time, the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`apply (37 CFR § 42.62(a)) and it is within the Board’s authority to manage the
`
`record by ruling on the admissibility of evidence based on the trial as instituted so
`
`that in the event of an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 142, a proper record exists that can
`
`be transmitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1002
`Ex. 1002 does not contain a “highly relevant admission” (Paper 42 at 2), but
`
`instead says nothing more than the patent itself in Ex. 1001 at 1:20-23 (“This
`
`invention … relates to a portable data carrier for storing and paying for data…”)
`
`and 1:64-66 (“reading payment information,” “validating the payment
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`information”). Ex. 1002 is inadmissible other evidence of the content of a writing
`
`under FRE 1004, cumulative under FRE 403, and irrelevant under FRE 401, 402.
`
`B. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1004 - 1005, 1009, 1019,
` And 1027 - 1029
`
`Ex. 1004 - 1005, 1009, 1019, and 1027 – 1029 are not cited in any
`
`substantive way. The exhibits were merely listed in “Materials Reviewed and
`
`Relied Upon” by Mr. Wechselberger. Pap. 42 at 3. These exhibits are not relevant
`
`and not admissible. FRE 401, 402.
`
`C. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, and 1020
`CBM review in this case was instituted on 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds based
`
`on: the combination of Stefik ’235 and Stefik ’980; and separately, Ginter. All
`
`other grounds were denied. Pap. 7, at 22. Patent Owner does not dispute that “as
`
`part of the obviousness analysis, the prior art must be viewed in the context of
`
`what was generally known in the art at the time of the invention” (Pap. 42 at 3-4
`
`(citing In re Taylor Made Golf Co., 589 F. App’x 967, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2014))), but
`
`none of these exhibits or their teachings are cited in Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`allegations for “what was generally known in the art” to meet a claim limitation.
`
`In contrast to Taylor Made, there is no missing claim limitation in Petitioner’s
`
`references that Petitioner alleges is satisfied by general knowledge possessed by
`
`one skilled in the art, like “press fitting” was in Taylor Made. Here, neither the
`
`Petition nor the Wechselberger declaration rely on Ex. 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, or
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`1020 to fill in with “general knowledge” any aspect of a claim limitation. They
`
`should not be in evidence. FRE 401, 402.
`
`D. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1016 and 1018
`Petitioner asserts that Ex. 1016 and 1018, references for which the Board did
`
`not adopt Petitioner’s proposed invalidity grounds, are “evidence of the state of the
`
`art and a POSITA’s knowledge” (Pap.42 at 5) like Ex. 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017,
`
`and 1020, discussed above. The Board did not accept Ex. 1016 or 1018 as
`
`invalidating prior art. They are irrelevant and inadmissible like Ex. 1006, 1007,
`
`1012, 1017, and 1020.
`
`E. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1021
`The Board cannot assess whether Mr. Wechselberger’s opinion testimony
`
`under FRE 702 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 evidence (substantial evidence or preponderance
`
`of the evidence) in arriving at his opinions. As such, there is no basis to admit his
`
`expert testimony.2 Patent Owner’s lack of objection in the litigation to the “offer of
`
`2 Patent Owner acknowledges that FRE 602 is inapplicable to expert witnesses
`
`(Pap. 42 at 5). However, Mr. Wechselberger never states that he is an expert in the
`
`types of methods and systems defined by the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`Mr. Wechselberger as an expert” (Pap. 42 at 7) is irrelevant. It is not an admission
`
`that Mr. Wechselberger is an expert. The supporting proof, Ex. 1034, is hearsay.
`
`FRE 801(c).
`
`F. The Board Should Exclude Requested Portions of Exhibit 1031
`The Board should exclude portions of Ex. 1031 in instances where the scope
`
`of the Katz deposition examination exceeded the scope of the direct testimony (37
`
`CFR 42.53(d)(5)(ii)) and where the testimony was irrelevant. Unlike CBM2014-
`
`00008, Pap. 48 (Aug. 12, 2014) relied on by Petitioner (Pap. 42 at 8), where the
`
`Patent Owner sought “the extreme remedy of striking 114 pages of the deposition,”
`
`(CBM2014-00008, Pap. 48 at 4), here Patent Owner seeks to exclude discrete
`
`portions. A fair reading of the record demonstrates that Patent Owner’s objections
`
`were made and preserved at the deposition.
`
`Ex. 1031 36:10-37:11 – Petitioner does not rebut that this testimony is
`
`irrelevant given that it relates to claims (conditional access to stored data) and
`
`terms (“payment validation” not “payment validation data”) outside the scope of
`
`the proceeding as instituted.
`
`Ex. 1031 70:1 – 73:9 –Petitioner does not rebut that this testimony is
`
`irrelevant given that the issue is whether Stefik ‘235 discloses use of a credit card,
`
`not whether “there is anything that would exclude the use a credit card” as asked.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`Ex. 1031 110:7 – 111:4 – Petitioner does not rebut that “when payment data
`
`happens” is nonsensical and that the differences between two embodiments in the
`
`‘221 Patent are irrelevant here.
`
`Ex. 1031 114:3 – 116:13 – Petitioner does not rebut that this testimony about
`
`‘221 Patent alternative embodiments is outside the scope of direct given that it
`
`relates to enablement and that Dr. Katz testified it was not part of his declaration.
`
`Ex. 1031 124:10 – 128:11 – Petitioner does not rebut that this testimony is
`
`outside the scope given that Petitioner’s counsel never established what he meant
`
`by “pre-purchase processing” and never framed the question in terms of Dr. Katz’s
`
`definition or prior use of the term.
`
`Ex. 1031 145:6 – 146:8 and Ex. 1031 152:7 – 156:12 – Petitioner admits that
`
`this testimony does not relate to limitations in the instituted claims of the ‘317
`
`Patent. Pap. 42 at 15, n. 6.
`
`G. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1101-1129
`Given the consolidation with CBM2014-00112, duplicative exhibits from
`
`CBM2014-00113 should be excluded.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board exclude the exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`Dated: June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE in CBM2014-00112 was
`
`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: June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`