`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`A. The Subject Deposition Excerpts Lack Proper Foundation ............. 1
`B. The Subject Deposition Excerpts Are Outside the Scope ................. 4
`C. The Subject Deposition Excerpts Are Irrelevant ............................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In opposing Samsung’s (Petitioner’s) Motion to Exclude, Smartflash (Patent
`
`Owner) continues to allege that Dr. Bloom is biased because “similarity between
`
`his employer’s products and the claims of the patent would provide Dr. Bloom
`
`with a motivation to be biased against the claims being found to be statutory
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Paper 39 (citing Papers 20/21, at 6). Yet,
`
`Smartflash has failed show that Dr. Bloom was aware of any similarity (even
`
`assuming that such similarity exists) between his employer’s products and the
`
`subject patent at the time that Dr. Bloom rendered his declaration, a necessary
`
`condition for the alleged bias. See Paper 39. Thus, Smartflash has not established
`
`the alleged bias. Id. According, the subject portions from the deposition transcript
`
`should be excluded, as requested by Samsung.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Subject Deposition Excerpts Lack Proper Foundation
`In opposing Samsung’s motion (Papers 37/38), Smartflash concedes that Dr.
`
`Bloom “has not been advanced as an expert with regard to subscription-based
`
`business practice of a third-party company.” See Paper 39 at 3. Yet, Smartflash
`
`insists that “Dr. Bloom is currently employed by such ‘third-party company’ and
`
`its ‘subscription-based business practices’ are both within Dr. Bloom’s job
`
`responsibilities and relevant to the patent claims.” Id.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`The insistence is unfounded. Consistent with Smartflash’s concession (that
`
`Dr. Bloom has not been advanced as not been advanced as an expert with regard to
`
`subscription-based business practice of a third-party company), Dr. Bloom also
`
`testified under oath he does not know potentially relevant details of his employer’s
`
`business practice.
`
`Q. Does SiriusXM have a lot of subscribers?
`
`A. I don't know how many they have.
`
`Q. More than a million?
`
`A. I don't know.
`
`Exhibit 2056: 174:19-22.1
`
`While insisting that “all of the factual foundation necessary for Smartflash’s
`
`cross examination inquiry into Dr. Bloom’s knowledge of [a third-pary company’s]
`
`product is set forth in his direct testimony in his declaration,” Smartflash conflates
`
`an “[i]nquiry into how the third-party company’s products handle condidtional
`
`access” with the subscription-based business practice of the third party. Paper 39
`
`
`1 Because of Dr. Bloom’s apparent lack of personal knowledge of such
`
`subscription-based business practice of the third-party company, treating the
`
`content of the subject deposition excerpts as lay witness opinion would be equally
`
`improper.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`at 3. Without more, Smartflash then asserts that it “is entitled to have the Board
`
`consider Dr. Bloom’s responses to the inquiry and how any similarity between Dr.
`
`Bloom’s employer’s products and the claims of the patent would provide Dr.
`
`Bloom with a motivation to be biased against the claims being found to be
`
`statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Id.
`
`Smartflash’s analysis is flawed at least because Smartflash failed to provide
`
`any foundation for the entire line of questioning, a line of questioning that the
`
`PTAB previously struck down in its consideration of the list of excluded motions2.
`
`Aside from Dr. Bloom’s apparent lack of knowledge about the subscription-based
`
`business practice of a third party company, Dr. Bloom also testified under oath that
`
`he did not consider his employer’s products in relationship to the patent claims at
`
`issue.
`
`Q. In preparing your report, did you consider whether [a third-party
` company]'s system that enables limited use of paid for and/or
` licensed content is covered by any of the claims for which you
` provided an opinion?
`
`A. No, I didn't consider that.
`
`
`2 See Paper 11 (dismissing Smartflash’s contention that “an accused infringer who
`
`pleads in the alternative that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 101, a
`
`question of law, is taking an inconsistent position with its non-infringement
`
`position.”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`Q. Is there a reason that you didn't?
`
`A. It didn't occur to me.
`
`Exhibit 2056,174:23-175:5.
`
`In other words, Dr. Bloom did not perceive any alleged similarity between a
`
`third-party company’s product and the patent claims at issue. Therefore, even if a
`
`third-party company’s products are relevant to the patent claims at issue, an inquiry
`
`to which Smartflash never established a foundation, Smartflash failed to impute
`
`knowledge of the alleged infringement to Dr. Bloom at the time of his rendering of
`
`his declaration, a necessary condition for the alleged bias to exist.
`
`The Subject Deposition Excerpts Are Outside the Scope
`
`B.
`During deposition and over Samsung’s objection3, Smartflash solicited
`
`testimony from Dr. Bloom that is outside the scope of the direct examination, and
`
`Smartflash failed to demonstrate the testimony relates to matters affecting the
`
`credibility of Dr. Bloom. In opposing Samsung’s motion under FRE 611(b) (Paper
`
`35/36), Smartflash still fails to demonstrate that any possible motivation of the
`
`third-party company could be imputed to Dr. Bloom, as discussed in IIA.
`
`
`3 Contrast with Apple Inc. v Smartflash LLC CBM2014-00108/00109 Paper 9 at
`
`22-24 (discussing that “many of the questions and answers that Patent Owner now
`
`seeks to exclude [for exceeding the scope of the direct testimony] were not
`
`objected to during the deposition….”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`C. The Subject Deposition Excerpts Are Irrelevant
`Smartflash’s opposition does not buttress the unsustainable bias argument,
`
`either substantively or logically. As if recognizing the flaw in its position,
`
`Smartflash then asserts that its “inquiry into whether Dr. Bloom considered
`
`whether his [employer’s] products would read on the Smartflash patent claims
`
`reflects on the depth of Dr. Bloom’s investigation and patentability opinion.”
`
`Paper 39 at 5. Based on Dr. Bloom’s leadership role in managing a team of
`
`systems engineers and without providing any additional foundation, Smartflash
`
`then professes that “[i]t is unfathomable that a person in such a position would not
`
`consider whether any of his company’s own products read on the patent claims he
`
`is evaluating.” Paper 39 at 6. To belittle the rest of Dr. Bloom’s opinion,
`
`Smartflash asks the Board to “take that fact into consideration in assigning weight
`
`to Dr. Bloom’s testimony.” Id. This line of reasoning is fatally flawed because
`
`Smartflash fails to impute knowledge of the alleged relevance by a third-party
`
`company to Dr. Bloom at the time of his rendering of his declaration, a necessary
`
`condition for the alleged bias to exist. Without the allged bisis, any insinuation of
`
`infringement4 by a third-party company unrelated to the instant CBM proceeding is
`
`of no consequence to the validity of the patent claims at issue.
`
`
`4 See generally, Patent Owner List of Proposed Motions, Paper 10; Order-Conduct
`
`of the Proceedings, Paper 11.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas A. Rozylowicz/
`
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz
`Reg. No. 50,620
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
` 10/19/2015
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00193
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0006CP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on October 19, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Reply in
`
`Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was provided
`
`via email to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence email addresses of
`
`record as follows:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
` docket@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`