UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`Case CBM2015-00015
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`Case CBM2015-00015
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1202 .............................................. 1
`B.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1203 – 1204 and 1227-1229 ....... 2
`C.
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1205, 1206, 1207, 1212, 1215,
`1217, 1218, 1220, 1231, 1232, and 1233 .............................................. 2
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1210, 1213, 1214, 1216, and
`1219 ....................................................................................................... 2
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1221 .............................................. 2
`The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1223 Or Petitioner Should Correct
`The Record ............................................................................................ 3
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`E.
`F.
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1202
`Ex. 1202 does not contain a “highly relevant admission” (Paper 43 at 2), but
`
`instead says nothing more than the patent itself in Ex. 1201 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
`
`information”). Ex. 1202 therefore is inadmissible other evidence of the content of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`a writing under FRE 1004, cumulative under FRE 403, and irrelevant under FRE
`
`401, 402.
`
`B. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1203 – 1204 and 1227-1229
`Ex. 1203 – 1204 and 1227 – 1229 are not cited in any substantive way. As
`
`Petitioner acknowledges, the exhibits merely were listed in “Materials Reviewed
`
`and Relied Upon” by Mr. Wechselberger. Pap. 43 at 2-3. These exhibits therefore
`
`are not relevant and not admissible. FRE 401, 402.
`
`C. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1205, 1206, 1207, 1212, 1215, 1217,
`1218, 1220, 1231, 1232, and 1233
`
`Exhibits 1205, 1206, 1207, 1212, 1215, 1217, 1218, 1220, 1231, 1232, and
`
`1233 were not alleged to be invalidating prior art and should be excluded. FRE
`
`401, 402.
`
`D. The Board Should Exclude Exhibits 1210, 1213, 1214, 1216, and 1219
`Exhibits 1210, 1213, 1214, 1216, and 1219 were originally alleged to be
`
`invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Paper 23 at 3), but CBM review in
`
`this case was instituted on claim 1of the ‘221 Patent on 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds
`
`only. No other grounds were authorized. Pap. 23 at 21-22. These exhibits
`
`therefore should no longer be in evidence. FRE 401, 402.
`
`E. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1221
`The Board cannot assess under FRE 702 whether Mr. Wechselberger’s
`
`opinion testimony is “based on sufficient facts or data,” is “the product of reliable
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`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 (substantial evidence or preponderance of the evidence) against which
`
`he measured the quantum of evidence in arriving at his opinions. As such, there is
`
`no basis to admit his expert testimony.1
`
`F. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1223 Or Petitioner Should Correct
`The Record
`
`Petitioner concedes that its Exhibit List and docket description do not
`
`support that Ex. 1223 is what it is purported to be. Paper 43 at 8. Exhibit 1223
`
`therefore either should be excluded or the record should be corrected.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board exclude the exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner acknowledges that FRE 602 is inapplicable to expert witnesses
`
`(Pap. 43 at 8). However, Mr. Wechselberger never states that he is an expert in the
`
`types of methods and systems defined by the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 22, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE in CBM2015-00015 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: October 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
