`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. ______
`Filed: June 12, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent 7,685,055
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Under 37 C.F.R. 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`The TSE Translation (Ex. 1008) Should Be Excluded ....................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`TT Timely Objected to the TSE Translation, Which Was Relied
`Upon in TD’s Petition and Its Reply .......................................................... 2
`
`B. All of the TSE Translation Should be Excluded for Failing to
`Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) ............................................................. 2
`
`C.
`
`In the Absence of Excluding All of TSE, At Least Pages 101-
`140 of the TSE Translation (Exhibit 1008) Should Be Excluded
`for Failing to Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) ..................................... 6
`
`II. Dr. Román’s Supp. Dec. (Ex. 1023) Should be Excluded ................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`TT Timely Objected to the Supp. Dec., Which Was Relied
`Upon in TD’s Reply ....................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Dr. Román’s Supp. Dec. Lacks Relevance Under FRE 402 and
`is Prejudicial under FRE 403 ....................................................................... 9
`
`III. Page 28, line 14, to page 29, line 22, of Mr. Hartheimer’s Deposition
`Transcript (Ex. 1029) Should Be Excluded ........................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(c) and 42.61(a) and the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence, Patent Owner Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”), moves to
`
`exclude the English translation of the TSE document (Ex. 1008), because the
`
`translation fails to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) and Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 104(b) and 602-604. The original affidavit of Ms. O’Connell (Ex. 1009) is
`
`defective because it was not made by a person having personal knowledge of the
`
`translation. Because this defect is not curable by supplemental evidence, all of the
`
`TSE translation should be excluded. Although subsequent affidavits were prepared
`
`by Petitioner TD Ameritrade et al. (“TD” or “Petitioner”), one declarant, Mr.
`
`Skidmore, denied that pages 101-140 of Ex. 1008 were his translation. For this
`
`additional reason, at least pages 101-140 of Ex. 1008 should be excluded.
`
`TT also moves to exclude the Supp. Dec. of Kendyl A. Román (Ex. 1023,
`
`“Supp. Dec.”), because portions of Exhibit 1023 lack relevance (FRE 402), since
`
`they exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and
`
`are prejudicial to TT, since TT is unable to respond to them (FRE 403).
`
`In addition, TT moves to exclude Exhibit 1029, page 28, line 14, to page 29,
`
`line 22, for going beyond the proper scope of cross-examination under FRE 611.
`
`I.
`
`The TSE Translation (Ex. 1008) Should Be Excluded
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`A. TT Timely Objected to the TSE Translation,1 Which Was Relied
`Upon in TD’s Petition and Its Reply
`
`TT objected to Exhibits 1007-1009 in objections served December 16, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2273. TD relies upon the TSE translation (Ex. 1008) for all instituted prior art
`
`grounds throughout its Petition and in its Reply. Pet., Paper 1 at 13-35; Reply,
`
`Paper 51 at 17-23; I.D., Paper 19 at 17-26.
`
`B. All of the TSE Translation Should be Excluded for Failing to
`Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`
`When TD filed its Petition and the TSE translation, it filed an ineffective
`
`affidavit of Ms. Courtney O’Connell (Ex. 1009). Ms. O’Connell’s affidavit fails to
`
`comply with § 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), which requires that “[w]hen a party relies on a
`
`document . . . in a language other than English, a translation of the document into
`
`English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation must be filed
`
`with the document.” A declarant “may testify to a matter only if evidence is
`
`introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge
`
`of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602 (emphasis added). For foreign language
`
`translations, a translation not certified as true and accurate is not admissible under
`
`
`1 The Board determined that TT’s original objection to Exs. 1007-1009 preserved
`
`its objections to the supplemental evidence (Exs. 1017-1021) and no further
`
`objections were necessary. Ex. 3003 at 16:4-12.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`the Federal Rules of Evidence or the Board’s Rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b); City of
`
`N.Y. v. Geodata Plus, LLC, 537 F. Supp. 2d 443, 448 n.9 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); cf.
`
`Quiroga v. Fall River Music, Inc., No. 93-civ-2914, 1998 WL 851574 at *2 n.3
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 1998).
`
`The accuracy of Ex. 1008 is a question of fact. Ms. O’Connell’s affidavits
`
`(Exs. 1009 and 1021) cannot testify to the factual accuracy of the translation,
`
`because she has no personal knowledge of Japanese-English translation or personal
`
`knowledge of the underlying source document’s contents. Ex. 2093 [O’Connell
`
`Tr.] at 16:16-17; Fed. R. Evid. 602; Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 at 11-12 (January 21, 2015).
`
`Ms. O’Connell’s affidavits are thus irrelevant to these proceedings. Ms.
`
`O’Connell admitted that she (1) speaks only English and, therefore, cannot attest to
`
`the accuracy of a Japanese translation; (2) does not know which pages were
`
`translated by any translator; and (3) did not perform a quality check on the
`
`translations. Ex. 2093 at 16:16-17, 38:8-39:1, 72:10-19. Ms. O’Connell merely
`
`managed the account relationship with TD, but she did not assign the translations,
`
`communicate with the translators, compile the translations, or even review the
`
`translations. Ex. 2093 at 73:17-74:3. In fact, Ms. O’Connell not only admitted that
`
`she cannot read Japanese, but also admitted that the project manager, Courtney
`
`Edmunds, also could not verify the accuracy of the translation because Ms.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`Edmunds cannot read Japanese and has no Japanese translation experience. Ex.
`
`2093 at 74:1-15.
`
`To compound Ms. O’Connell’s lack of factual knowledge as to the accuracy,
`
`she admits that no one performed any quality check or accuracy verification of the
`
`translation. Ex. 2093 at 73:17-74:3. As a result of the failure to review or quality
`
`check these rushed translations, there are numerous inconsistencies, missing parts
`
`of the original Japanese document, and incorrect translations, rendering the
`
`document unreliable and inaccurate. E.g., Ex. 2096 at 16:5-15, 18:12-17, 22:12-22,
`
`23:5-21; 25:9-25, 41:4-9; Ex. 2094 at 50:6-51:2, 72:8-20 (translating “meigara” as
`
`“brand” from commercial products not in the context of stocks), 76:14-77:14
`
`(translating “saiken” as “securities” and “bond,” which are different terms), 77:18-
`
`22 (acknowledging that “shisuu” should have been translated as “index,” not
`
`“security”), 81:1-82:9 (text for “nearby delivery month” not in source text and
`
`changing translation text from source text characters), 82:10-83:10 (text of which
`
`translator is unsure of meaning omitted from translation), 86:2-87:7 (modifiers to
`
`text missing in translation), 87:12-89:5 (translator copied text from previous part
`
`without adjusting meaning for different source text), 89:21-90:24 (missing words
`
`in translation). Nor are these mistakes merely interchangeable words. For example,
`
`although a “bond” may be a “security” in some cases, not all “securities” are
`
`“bonds” and the mistranslations in Ex. 1008 obfuscate the correct underlying
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`substance of the source document. Furthermore, these mistranslations do not even
`
`begin to address the omitted text, which cannot be cured. See id.
`
`In fact, Ms. O’Connell’s declaration cannot be correct or reliable because
`
`she never spoke with the translators. Any of her statements about accuracy of the
`
`translation, in addition to being undermined by her admissions that she cannot read
`
`or speak Japanese, are contradicted by the fact that a purported translator admitted
`
`that the translation at pages 101-140 is not his. See Section III.C; Ex. 2096 at 14:5-
`
`22, 17:7-17. The failure to collect affidavits of accuracy from the actual translators
`
`renders Ms. O’Connell’s declaration incorrect and unreliable, and also
`
`demonstrates that the entire TSE translation is unreliable and should be excluded.
`
`For at least the substantive issue opined on by Mr. Abilock, TD’s translation
`
`is the only translation (of several) to make certain substantive errors in the
`
`translation of jou-ge as either “up and down” or “above and below.” Compare Ex.
`
`1008 at 115 with Ex. 2097 at ¶¶ 35 n.1, 76 and Ex. 2214 at 15; 2216 at 53; 2217 at
`
`13; and 2218 at 13. Furthermore, TD’s assertions based on the EPO’s statement
`
`about similarities are irrelevant because Ex. 1008 was not one of the translations
`
`considered in those proceedings. Because of Ms. O’Connell’s admitted deficiency
`
`in having personal knowledge to testify to the factual question of the translation’s
`
`accuracy—and therefore fail to discern the numerous substantive errors in Ex.
`
`1008—her affidavits cannot satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R § 42.63(b) or the
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`corresponding Federal Rules.
`
`Nor can subsequent declarations cure this deficiency. Under the Board’s
`
`rules, a proper affidavit of accuracy must be filed with the translation. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(b). TD did not provide any translator declarations attesting to the accuracy
`
`of the translation with the originally-filed Exhibit. See Exs. 1007-1009; Pet. at vi
`
`(Exhibit List). When a proper affidavit is not filed with the translation (or even
`
`obtained by the filing party), such errors cannot be cured by supplemental
`
`evidence. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`
`IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 at 11-12 (January 21, 2015) (holding that because an
`
`affidavit was not filed with a translation, the Board would not consider the
`
`reference). Like in Zhongshan, TD did not obtain any declaration from any
`
`purported translator (the only people with personal knowledge of the factual
`
`question of accuracy) until after the petition and translation exhibit were filed. See
`
`Exs. 1017-1020 (signed or after Dec. 30, 2014, after institution of the proceeding).
`
`Zhongshan clearly states that a petitioner who fails to obtain an original affidavit at
`
`the time of filing cannot cure the deficiency by supplemental evidence. Id.
`
`Because TD failed to comply with the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`
`and Fed. R. Evid. 602-604, the TSE translation (Ex. 1008) should be excluded.
`
`C.
`
`In the Absence of Excluding All of TSE, At Least Pages 101-140 of
`the TSE Translation (Exhibit 1008) Should Be Excluded for
`Failing to Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`Even if the Board does not exclude the entire TSE translation, it should
`
`exclude pages 101-140 because, even after submitting supplemental affidavits,
`
`there is no affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of that part of the
`
`translation. Although TD submitted an affidavit of Mr. Ronald Skidmore (Ex.
`
`1017), during his deposition, Mr. Skidmore repeatedly stated that the translation
`
`filed by TD did not appear to be his translation, because “it doesn’t look anything
`
`like what [he] did.” Ex. 2096 at 14:5-22, 17:7-17. Accordingly, there is nothing in
`
`the record by a person having personal knowledge that attests to the accuracy of
`
`translated pages 101-140, as required by Rule 42.63(b). As stated above, Ms.
`
`O’Connell’s blanket affidavit cannot suffice because she cannot read Japanese. Ex.
`
`2093 at 16:16-17; see Fed. R. Evid. 602 (requiring personal knowledge to testify to
`
`a matter); Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) (requiring proof that a fact exists where the
`
`relevance of the evidence depends on the existence of a fact). No other affidavit
`
`filed by TD even mentions these pages. See Exs. 1018-1020. Based on this failure
`
`to comply with Rule 42.63(b), pages 101-140 of Exhibit 1008 should be excluded
`
`from the proceeding.
`
`Mr. Skidmore’s declaration states only that he “translated pages 101-140 of
`
`the TSE document,” which does not link any work that he did to the translation in
`
`Ex. 1008. See Ex. 1017. When directly asked whether the translation in Ex. 1008
`
`was Mr. Skidmore’s translation, he repeatedly stated that the translation did not
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`
`appear to be his:
`
`THE WITNESS [Mr. Skidmore]: So, no, I’ve never seen this part.
`I’ve seen only the few page--- well, come to think of it, I don’t
`really know if I’ve seen this before. This might not be anything
`that I’ve ever seen before. Might be done by somebody else.
`Ex. 2096 at 13:1-5 (emphasis added).
`
`BY MR. RODKEY: Q And, in your declaration, did you testify
`that you translated pages 101 to 140 of this document?
`A [Mr. Skidmore] Yes, I did. But I’m not sure that this is the
`actual copy of what I translated -- that this is my translation.
`Ex. 2096 at 15:4-10 (emphasis added).
`
`Q [Mr. Rodkey] We have some questions about the accuracy
`of the translation that I’ve given you.
`A [Mr. Skidmore] The more I look at this [pages 101-140],
`the more it doesn’t even seem like mine. I don’t know -- you
`know, I can’t really...
`Q So you think this is not your translation?
`A I’m seeing various signs that -- it doesn’t look anything
`like what I did.
`Q Why does it not look like what you did?
`A Because I don’t forget things like this (indicating).
`Ex. 2096 at 17:7-17 (emphasis added). In light of Mr. Skidmore’s repeated
`
`statements, pages 101-140 fail to comply with Rule 42.63(b) because no affidavit
`
`was filed by a person having personal knowledge of their accuracy.
`
`Without proper evidence attesting to the accuracy of the translation, the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`translation is inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) (“Evidence that is not taken,
`
`sought, or filed in accordance with this subpart is not admissible.”). The Board has
`
`held that the failure to provide a proper affidavit under § 42.63(b) is grounds to
`
`refuse to consider a translation. Zhongshan, IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 at 11-12.
`
`As in Zhongshan, here TD failed to obtain an affidavit attesting to the
`
`accuracy of pages 101-140. Although Mr. Skidmore executed an affidavit, he
`
`admits that Ex. 1008 is not his translation. E.g., Ex. 2096 at 14:5-22, 17:7-17.
`
`Accordingly, TD has failed to comply with Rule 42.63(b), which precludes the
`
`translation from being admissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a). Thus, pp. 101-140 of the
`
`translation must be excluded. Id.; Zhongshan, IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 at 11-13.
`
`II. Dr. Román’s Supp. Dec. (Ex. 1023) Should be Excluded
`A. TT Timely Objected to the Supp. Dec., Which Was Relied Upon
`in TD’s Reply
`
`TT objected to Exhibit 1023 in objections served June 5, 2015. Paper 52. TD
`
`relies upon the Supp. Dec. (Ex. 1023) for its 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds as well as its
`
`§ 101 grounds. E.g., Reply, Paper 51 at 4, 6, 8-10, 16, 18-23.
`
`B. Dr. Román’s Supp. Dec. Lacks Relevance Under FRE 402 and is
`Prejudicial under FRE 403
`
`Rather than further explain the original arguments set out in the Petition,
`
`TD’s Reply improperly raises several issues for the first time, supported by Dr.
`
`Román’s Supp. Dec.. Thus, instead of narrowing the issues before the Board, TD’s
`
`Reply expands them. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) states “[a] reply may only respond to
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” As explained in
`
`the Trial Practice Guide, “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case
`
`for [] unpatentability” and “new evidence that could have been presented in a prior
`
`filing” are improper. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. The Board should not allow TD to
`
`propose entirely new theories of the alleged prior art’s application to the claims in
`
`an attempt to cure its submission of an inaccurate and defective translation, or new
`
`theories of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when those arguments could
`
`have been presented in its Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) requires that “[a] petition . . . must include ‘[a] full
`
`statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of
`
`the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law,
`
`rules, and precedent.’” TD’s late evidence to support new “reasons for the relief
`
`requested” and new alleged “material facts” lacks relevance under FRE 402 and
`
`goes beyond TD’s originally proposed “reasons for the relief requested.”
`
`The new evidence prejudices Patent Owner under FRE 403 because its own
`
`experts cannot now respond to TD’s new arguments and opinions, and Patent
`
`Owner is precluded from addressing the Supp. Dec. in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`See Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol
`
`Limited, IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 at 13. The new evidence is also a waste of time,
`
`confuses the issues, and could cause undue delay (FRE 403) because it
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`unnecessarily expands the issues for Oral Hearing, and presents multiple theories
`
`(legal, prior art, and claim construction) that have not been fully briefed for
`
`consideration in the Board’s Final Written Decision.
`
`For at least the following reasons with respect to the instituted 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 grounds, the Supp. Dec. is improper:
`
`1.
`
`Citing to the Supp. Dec. at ¶¶ 12 and 13, TD argues in its Reply for
`
`the first time that TSE “implies a six-level range centered on the central price,
`
`three on top and three on bottom” and that “TSE teaches the claimed repositioning
`
`because the repositioning threshold can be determined whether one counts from the
`
`ends or the center of the price axis.” Reply at 19-20 (emphasis added). In its
`
`Petition, TD did not propose that TSE teaches measuring from the center rather
`
`than the ends. Nor did TD argue that a POSITA would equate measuring from the
`
`center of an axis with measuring from the ends of an axis to meet the claim
`
`elements. There was no reason for TD to do so, because its (faulty) translation of
`
`TSE (Ex. 1008) did not suggest measuring from the center. To the contrary, TD’s
`
`Petition alleged only that TSE teaches the claimed “repositioning” by its alleged
`
`disclosure that there may be repositioning when the “designated price within or
`
`exceeds ‘top and bottom 3 prices’ or ‘top and bottom 1 price.’” See Pet. at 16, 19,
`
`26, 53. Faced with a different translation of TSE, TD cannot now formulate new
`
`positions at this late date when TT will have no opportunity to respond with its
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`own expert testimony. Dr. Román’s new conclusion that “although the claims
`
`recite calculating the repositioning threshold from the ends of the axis, one of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood the same threshold can also be located by
`
`counting from the center of the axis” and supporting statements in ¶¶ 12 and 13 are
`
`therefore irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of time, confuse the
`
`issues, and are likely to cause undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`2.
`
`Citing to the Supp. Dec. at ¶¶ 20-22, TD argues in its Reply for the
`
`first time that the claims “allow the designation of any price-level threshold to
`
`trigger repositioning, including zero and negative numbers” and that “[t]he claims
`
`do not forbid setting the designated number of levels to one-half the length of the
`
`price axis, which will cause the axis to reposition every time the designated price
`
`leaves the center, just like TSE’s compressed mode.” See Reply at 23. In effect,
`
`TD newly argues that TSE’s compressed mode can be static. But TD cannot now
`
`formulate new positions at this late date when TT will have no opportunity to
`
`respond with its own expert testimony. TD’s Petition never mentioned zero or
`
`negative numbers and it consistently maintained that TSE’s uncompressed mode is
`
`static, not its compressed mode. See, e.g., Pet. at 16, 25-26. Not only does this new
`
`argument present a new application of the prior art, but it raises claim construction
`
`issues that the Patent Owner cannot now respond to. Dr. Román’s new conclusions
`
`that “[w]ith respect to the desired repositioning threshold, the patent does not limit
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`where it may be set” and supporting statements in ¶¶ 20-22, as well as his
`
`conclusion that “setting the designated of levels to one-half the length of the axis”
`
`equates to TSE’s “compressed mode” in ¶ 23, are therefore irrelevant under Rule
`
`402 and prejudicial, a waste of time, confuse the issues, and are likely to cause
`
`undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`3.
`
`Citing to the Supp. Dec. at ¶ 19, TD argues in its Reply for the first
`
`time that “TSE also teaches performing the displaying step and the adjusting step
`
`in the recited order, albeit with unrecited intermediate steps.” See Reply at 20-23.
`
`TD’s Petition, in contrast, limited TSE to performing the operation in a different
`
`order than required by the claims. See, e.g., Pet. at 20-22. When addressing the
`
`claimed “displaying” step, for example, TD’s Petition limited its discussion of TSE
`
`to the “uncompressed price display.” Pet. at 20. But in discussing the claimed
`
`“adjusting” step, TD’s Petition argued that “[i]n TSE, a display is transitioned from
`
`a compressed price display to a non-compressed price display.” Pet. at 22
`
`(emphasis added). In other words, TD argued for performing the adjusting step
`
`before the displaying step. Id. Nowhere did TD’s Petition suggest reversing this
`
`process with multiple intervening steps to perform the recited claim. Likewise,
`
`nowhere did TD’s Petition contend that the claims (or TSE) should be considered
`
`in “any” order as it does now in its Reply. Reply at 20-22. Not only does TD’s new
`
`argument present a new application of the prior art, but it raises new claim
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`construction issues that the Patent Owner cannot now respond to. Dr. Román’s
`
`new conclusions regarding the order of claim 1’s steps in ¶ 19 are therefore
`
`irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of time, confuse the issues, and
`
`are likely to cause undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`For at least the following reasons with respect to the instituted 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 grounds, the Supp. Dec. is improper:
`
`1.
`
`Citing to the Supp. Dec. at ¶ 3, TD argues in its Reply for the first
`
`time that the displaying steps “can be done mentally or with a pen and paper” and
`
`that “[t]he claims do not explain how to set such thresholds . . . .” See Reply at 3-4.
`
`This new argument could have been included in Petitioner’s original paper, but
`
`was not, and it raises new claim construction issues in TD’s Reply that the Patent
`
`Owner cannot now brief. Dr. Román’s new conclusions and supporting statements
`
`in ¶ 3 are therefore irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of time,
`
`confuse the issues, and are likely to cause undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`2.
`
`Citing to the Supp. Dec. at ¶¶ 13, 14, and 19, TD argues in its Reply
`
`for the first time that “the claims read on repositioning upon receiving a command
`
`sent by a human with insignificant extra solution activities added.” See Reply at 4,
`
`8. TD’s Petition never argued that independent claims 1 and 17 contemplate
`
`manual activities. In fact, TD’s Petition limits its discussion of manual processes
`
`solely to claims 14 and 19, which present new steps outside those in the
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00137
`Patent No. 7,685,055
`independent claims. See Pet. at 13, 32, 60. This new argument could have been
`
`included in Petitioner’s original paper, but was not, and it raises new claim
`
`construction issues that the Patent Owner cannot now brief. Dr. Román’s new
`
`conclusions and supporting statements in ¶¶ 13, 14, and 19 are therefore irrelevant
`
`under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of time, confuse the issues, and are likely
`
`to cause undue delay under Rule 403.
`
`3.
`
`In its Petition, TD nowhere relied on expert testimony (by Dr. Román
`
`or otherwise) to support its 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds. See Pet. at 10-13. Ex. 1023 at
`
`¶¶ 3-6, therefore is irrelevant under Rule 402 and prejudicial, a waste of time,
`
`confuses the issues, and likely to cause undue delay under Rule 403. Finally, TD
`
`has not cited to ¶¶ 9-11 or 15-17, which are thus irrelevant under Rule 402.
`
`III. Page 28, line 14, to page 29, line 22, of Mr. Hartheimer’s Deposition
`Transcript (Ex. 1029) Should Be Excluded
`
`FRE 611 dictates that “Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject
`
`matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.”
`
`TT objected to the questioning in these lines, Ex. 1029 at 29:1, and the questioning
`
`went beyond the scope of Mr. Hartheimer’s declaration (Ex. 2100). TD relied on
`
`the lines of testimony on page 23 of its Reply, so the lines should be excluded.
`
`Dated: June 12, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joshua L. Goldberg/
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on June 12, 2015, via email directed to
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`jstrang-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lisa C. Hines/
`Lisa C. Hines
`Litigation Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
