`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case CBM2014-001121
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2014-00113 has been consolidated with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`I. DR. KATZ’S RECENT WORK DOES NOT MAKE UP FOR HIS
`LACK OF QUALIFICATION TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE PRIOR
`ART TIME PERIOD .......................................................................................... 1
`II. PO CAN CITE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCOCTED
`EXCUSE THAT DIFFERING DEFINITIONS CAUSED DR. KATZ’S
`LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................ 2
`III. PO CANNOT BLAME PETITIONER FOR DR. KATZ’S LACK OF
`KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................................. 4
`IV. PO’S “SYNOPSIS” IS MERELY UNSUPPORTED, UNAUTHORIZED
`SUR-REPLY ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As Patent Owner (“PO”) concedes, for admissibility F.R.E. 702 requires that
`
`an “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.”2 Opp. (Pap. 42)
`
`at 2. Notwithstanding PO’s litany of baseless excuses, Dr. Katz’s testimony reveals
`
`he cannot do so, and his Declaration should be excluded.
`
`I.
`
`Dr. Katz’s Recent Work Does Not Make Up For His Lack Of Qualifica-
`tion To Testify About The Prior Art Time Period
`Although Dr. Katz clearly did not meet his definition of a POSITA as of the
`
`claimed October 25, 1999 priority date (see Opp. 3 (“even if he did not meet the
`
`definition at the time…”),3 PO asserts his qualifications 16 years later—“at the
`
`time Dr. Katz rendered his opinions” in 2015—enable him to testify as an expert
`
`about what a POSITA would have understood in 1999. Id. 3-4. Even if, under
`
`some circumstances, later work might suffice to provide the necessary foundation,4
`
`2 Emphasis herein is added, and abbreviations are those in Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`3 While Dr. Katz later contended without basis that he was a POSITA at the priori-
`
`ty date (Ex. 1031 184:3-6), PO does not dispute that in 1999 he lacked both the de-
`
`gree and industry exposure required by Dr. Katz’s own definition. Ex. 2031 ¶ 9,
`
`App’x A.
`
`4 Cf. Opp. 3 (PO citing dissent in opinion subsequently vacated and decided in an
`
`en banc opinion, Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`this is certainly not the case here: nothing in Dr. Katz’s declaration or testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`provides a shred of evidentiary support for PO’s bald assertion that he has
`
`knowledge about what a POSITA would have known in 1999, which confirms he
`
`is in no position to “help the trier of fact.” Cf. F.R.E. 702.
`
`II.
`
`PO Can Cite No Evidence to Support its Concocted Excuse That Differ-
`ing Definitions Caused Dr. Katz’s Lack of Knowledge
`
`Each question PO now criticizes as being “ambiguously broad” or “unrelat-
`
`ed to the specific opinions [Dr. Katz] rendered” (Opp. 1) is, in fact, clear and rele-
`
`vant to whether Dr. Katz (1) was qualified to analyze the validity of the instituted
`
`claims and (2) reliably concluded they are valid. Tellingly, PO offers no evidence
`
`to support its excuse that Dr. Katz was “not sure” about various aspects of the prior
`
`art because of some purported confusion of terms that Dr. Katz failed to state at the
`
`time– e.g., that “Petitioner never established whose definition of a POSITA Dr.
`
`Katz was to use,” or that different interpretations of “person of ordinary skill” or
`
`“payment data” would lead to different answers. Opp. 4-8. This attempt to concoct
`
`uncertainty now, where Dr. Katz did not find it during deposition questioning by
`
`Petitioner, is especially glaring given that Dr. Katz’s own Declaration provided his
`
`express interpretation of the term “payment data” (Ex. 2031 ¶ 11), defined his un-
`
`derstanding of a POSITA (id. ¶ 9), and stated that he is “qualified to opine on what
`
`
`Cir. 2011), that omits PO’s cited statements).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`[a POSITA] would have understood at the time of the filing of the patent.” Id. ¶10.
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, Dr. Katz confirmed at the outset of his deposition that he understood the
`
`meaning of counsel’s references to “what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood.” Ex. 1031 10:15-11:3.
`
`Against the backdrop of Dr. Katz’s own testimony, PO cites no evidence to
`
`support its claim that Dr. Katz’s answers depended on differences in the definitions
`
`of a POSITA that he and Mr. Wechselberger proposed. Opp. 5, 7-8. For example,
`
`PO points out that Dr. Katz had no problem testifying that a POSITA would know
`
`what a merchant server was. Opp. 5; Ex. 1031 19:3-10 (Dr. Katz answering that a
`
`POSITA would have understood a merchant server to be “a computer server that
`
`was selling items, acting as a merchant”). But in trying to excuse Dr. Katz’s inabil-
`
`ity to answer whether a POSITA would have understood that digital content could
`
`be bought and sold over a network or the internet—e.g., sold by a “merchant serv-
`
`er”—PO speculates, without any support in Dr. Katz’s testimony or otherwise, that
`
`Dr. Katz’s POSITA would have understood it could be, but that the answer “is not
`
`clear for Petitioner’s POSITA.” Opp. 5. PO offers the same unsupported imagin-
`
`ings—that Dr. Katz’s POSITA might have understood the concepts and disclo-
`
`sures, but Petitioner’s POSITA might not have—to explain away Dr. Katz’s inabil-
`
`ity to answer questions on, e.g., a POSITA’s understanding of debit concepts or
`
`specific disclosures in Stefik and Ginter. Opp. at 7-8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`PO’s similar assertion that Dr. Katz could not answer questions regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`“pre-purchase processing”—a term used by Dr. Katz in his own Declaration – is
`
`equally meritless. Opp. 6-7; see Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 29-30.
`
`III. PO Cannot Blame Petitioner For Dr. Katz’s Lack of Knowledge
`
`PO’s present position that Dr. Katz’s multitude of “not sure” answers “re-
`
`flects the quality of the question, not the qualification of the witness” (Opp. 6) is
`
`also belied by the fact that PO’s counsel objected to almost none of these questions
`
`about which it now complains. Cf. Rule 42.64(a). Out of twenty-four substantive
`
`questions cited by PO, PO objected to only two for “form”—and Dr. Katz did not
`
`indicate any confusion about any of these questions during deposition. Ex. 1031
`
`13:16-14:3, 18:1-7, 18:15-20, 21:12-16, 23:2-15, 30:15-19, 31:14-17, 32:5-14,
`
`33:5-10, 124:10-128:11. And throughout his deposition, Dr. Katz asked for clarifi-
`
`cation when he needed it. See, e.g., Ex. 1031 15:21-16:1, 22:7-23:6, 25:19-26:3,
`
`36:10-18, 50:21-51:6, 56:14-57:1,71:21-72:14, 76:6-12, 89:22-90:8, 105:18-106:4,
`
`135:4-16, 160:5-161:22, 164:2-17. PO’s newly minted excuses (e.g., Opp. 5) are
`
`baseless.
`
`IV. PO’s “Synopsis” is Merely Unsupported, Unauthorized Sur-Reply
`
`Finally, PO’s lengthy bulleted “synopsis” (Opp. 8-13) does not address Dr.
`
`Katz’s inability to satisfy F.R.E. 702: instead, it consists of six pages of unauthor-
`
`ized sur-reply on “patentability.” Opp. 13. The opinions PO purports to summarize
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`were tested at deposition, revealing Dr. Katz’s lack of knowledge and inability to
`
`
`
`
`
`defend his opinions. These can be of no help to the Board, and should be excluded.
`
`Respectfully submitted, by /J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00112
`Patent 7,942,317 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER
`
`APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served on June 2, 2015, to the following Counsel for Pa-
`
`tent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`docket@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Smartflash LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Megan Raymond
`Megan F. Raymond
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`6
`
`
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
