`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00126
`
`Patent 8,118,221 B2
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner hereby objects to the
`
`admissibility of certain evidence submitted with Petitioner’s Petition, Paper 3
`
`(“Petition”). Patent Owner’s objections are based on the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence and the Board Rules and are set forth with particularity below.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002, the Declaration of Dr. Justin Douglas
`
`Tygar (“Tygar Declaration”), in its entirety as the Tygar Declaration does not state
`
`the relative evidentiary weight (e.g., substantial evidence versus preponderance of
`
`the evidence) that Dr. Tygar used in arriving at his conclusions. The Board cannot
`
`assess under FRE 702 whether Dr. Tygar’s opinion testimony is “the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods” or if Dr. Tygar “reliably applied the principles and
`
`methods to the facts of the case” given that Dr. Tygar did not disclose the standard
`
`against which he measured the evidence in arriving at his opinions.
`
`Additionally, the Tygar Declaration does not demonstrate that Dr. Tygar is
`
`an expert whose testimony is relevant to the issue of patent eligibility under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 the only issue on which this CBM was instituted. Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 8 at 19. Dr. Tygar has not shown that his opinions are proper
`
`expert opinions upon which the PTAB can rely as opposed to inadmissible lay
`
`opinions. FRE 701 and 702.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`The Tygar Declaration does not demonstrate that the methods used by Dr.
`
`Tygar in formulating his opinions are reliable and repeatable as required by
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993) and/or FRE
`
`702. The Tygar Declaration does not show how Dr. Tygar’s methods used in
`
`formulating his opinion on § 101 patent eligibility are reliable and repeatable,
`
`given that Dr. Tygar does not provide any analysis of any subject matter deemed to
`
`be § 101 eligible under his methodology. As such, the Tygar Declaration is
`
`inadmissible.
`
`The Tygar Declaration is further objected to to the extent that any paragraph
`
`relies upon an exhibit that is objected to herein for the reasons set forth in those
`
`objections. Any paragraph in the Tygar Declaration that relies upon any exhibit
`
`not relied upon by the PTAB to institute this proceeding is further objected to as
`
`not being relevant and therefore being inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1014, 1022, 1023, and 1024
`
`Neither the Petition nor the Tygar Declaration cites Exhibits 1004, 1005,
`
`1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1014, 1022, 1023, or 1024 as potentially invalidating prior
`
`art, either alone or in combination with any other reference. The PTAB Decision
`
`did not base any of its analysis on Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009,
`
`1014, 1022, 1023, or 1024. Thus, these exhibits do not appear to make a fact of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`consequence in determining this action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without these exhibits. As such, Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009,
`
`1014, 1022, 1023, and 1024 do not pass the test for relevant evidence under FRE
`
`401 and are thus not admissible per FRE 402.
`
`Exhibits 1022, 1023, and 1024 are further objected to on relevancy grounds
`
`because their subject matter (land leases, libraries, and toll roads, respectively) are
`
`not relevant to the technological solution to internet piracy set forth in the ‘221
`
`Patent. Failing the test for relevant evidence under FRE 401, these Exhibits are not
`
`admissible per FRE 402.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1015 on grounds that it
`
`is cumulative evidence and irrelevant. The Petition cites to Exhibits 1015 for the
`
`sole purpose of showing Patent Owner’s characterization of the ‘221 Patent as
`
`“generally cover[ing] a portable data carrier for storing data and managing access
`
`to the data via payment information and/or use status rules.” Petition at 7 (citing
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 1). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Tygar (Ex. 1002) does not cite to Exhibit
`
`1015. Petitioner does not need to cite to Exhibit 1015 to characterize what the
`
`‘221 Patent relates to when Exhibit 1001, the actual ‘221 Patent, is in evidence.
`
`Under FRE 1004, other evidence of the content of a writing (here the ‘221 Patent)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`is admissible if the original is lost, cannot be obtained, has not been produced, or
`
`the writing is not closely related to a controlling issue. None of those apply given
`
`that the ‘221 Patent is in evidence and is the subject of the trial. Exhibit 1015 is
`
`also objected to under FRE 403 as cumulative of Exhibit 1001.
`
`Patent Owner’s characterization of the ‘221 Patent is not relevant to any of
`
`the issues here. Being irrelevant evidence, Exhibit 1015 is not admissible per FRE
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Fax : (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`402.
`
`
`Dated: December 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE in CBM2015-00126 was
`
`served today, by agreement of the parties by emailing a copy to counsel for the
`
`Petitioner as follows:
`
`QE-SF-PTAB-Service@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 1, 2015
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Fax : (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6