throbber
Filed on behalf of Microsoft Corporation
`
`By: John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Salumeh R. Loesch (pro hac vice)
`salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S CORRECTED
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Pursuant to 37.C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence, petitioner
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) moves to exclude patent owner Proxyconn,
`
`Inc.’s (“Proxyconn”) Exhibit Number 2002, the Declaration of Alon Konchitsky
`
`(“Konchitsky’s Declaration” or “Konchitsky Declaration”), submitted in support of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (corrected version filed on June 20, 2013). Microsoft’s
`
`motion is based on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), relevant case law, and
`
`the PTAB’s Rules.
`
`I. MICROSOFT TIMELY OBJECTED
`TO DR. KONCHITSKY’S TESTIMONY
`
`Microsoft timely objected to Exhibit 2002, the Declaration of Alon
`
`Konchitsky. Proxyconn presented this evidence with its Response on May 21,
`
`2013. Microsoft timely objected on May 29, 2013, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1), identifying the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity
`
`to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence. (See Ex. 1027 (copy of
`
`Microsoft’s Objections to Exhibits)1.) Specifically, Microsoft objected to the
`
`admissibility of Dr. Konchitsky’s Declaration because he “is not qualified as an
`
`expert on the matters on which he opines” and his testimony does not satisfy the
`
`requirements of FRE 702(b)-(d). (Ex. 1027 at 1-2.)
`
`
`1 Microsoft also objected to Proxyconn’s Exhibit 2004, in response to which
`Proxyconn submitted supplemental evidence (Exhibit 2005).
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Microsoft again raised its objection in its Reply to Patent Owner’s Corrected
`
`Response, filed on August 21, and submitted the 3rd Declaration of Professor
`
`Darrell D. E. Long, Exhibit 1025, which provided further support for Microsoft’s
`
`objections.
`
`II.
`
`PROXYCONN RELIED ON DR. KONCHITSKY’S TESTIMONY
`
`In the Corrected Patent Owner’s Response filed June 20, 2013, Proxyconn
`
`relies on the direct testimony presented in Dr. Konchitsky’s Declaration (Ex. 2002)
`
`and cites to the Declaration throughout its argument (at pages 11-12 and 17-39).
`
`Proxyconn uses the Konchitsky Declaration to support its arguments of what
`
`a person of skill in the art would know (see, e.g., Resp. at 12, 29-30), the teachings
`
`of the prior art and the patent (see, e.g., id. at 17-24, 27-31, 33-35, 37-40), and the
`
`technology generally (see, e.g., id. at 22, 25, 26, 32, 36-37, 39, 43). But, Dr.
`
`Konchitsky is not a person of skill in the art and is not sufficiently familiar with the
`
`technology and field of the art to opine on such matters.
`
`III. DR. KONCHITSKY’S DIRECT
`TESTIMONY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`Dr. Konchitsky’s direct testimony (Ex. 2002) should be excluded as
`
`inadmissible under FRE 602, 701, and 702 because Dr. Konchitsky is not an expert
`
`in the field and does not have personal knowledge on which to base his testimony.
`
`Further, Dr. Konchitsky’s testimony, even if he is found to be an expert, is
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`inadmissible because (1) it is not based on “facts or data,” (2) is not the “product of
`
`reliable principles and methods,” and (3) does not show a reliable application of
`
`“principles and methods to the facts of the case.” FRE 702(b)-(d).
`
`A. Dr. Konchitsky Does Not Qualify As An Expert In This
`Field And Does Not Qualify As A Person Of Skill In The Art
`
`Dr. Konchitsky’s CV submitted by Proxyconn explains that he has been an
`
`expert in the fields of “voice technologies, adaptive speech processing, voice
`
`coders, wireless voice communications, portable processing/architecture and
`
`operating systems.” (Ex. 2003 at 1.) His CV also identifies his work experience,
`
`which has been focused on voice communications and mobile and wireless
`
`technologies. In addition, he has done some coding. (Id. at 1-2.) The technology
`
`at issue in this IPR, however, involves generally the sending of data over
`
`communication networks, and more specifically distributed data storage systems
`
`and networking, and code theories and cryptographic hash functions. (See, e.g.,
`
`’717 patent at 1:10-15, 6:24-47.) Dr. Konchitsky is not an expert in this field and
`
`admitted in his deposition that he was unfamiliar with much of the relevant
`
`background and terminology in the field. (Ex. 1024 (Konchitsky Tr., July 2, 2013)
`
`at 145:23-155:2.) Such unfamiliarity with the relevant field is grounds for
`
`excluding his testimony. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550
`
`F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (dismissing expert testimony where expert did
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`not possess “the relevant expertise in the pertinent art”).
`
`Dr. Darrell Long, Microsoft’s expert witness, explains in his declaration (Ex.
`
`1025) that Dr. Konchitsky is not an expert in the field relevant to the ’717 patent
`
`and the prior art in this IPR. Dr. Long’s assessment is based on Dr. Konchitsky’s
`
`testimony that he does not have the common knowledge about HTTP, caching, file
`
`systems, and other topics relevant to this IPR. Further, he has not written on
`
`matters in this field, is not a member of various organizations in this field, and has
`
`not worked in this field. (Id.) In fact, Dr. Konchitsky does not qualify as a person
`
`of skill in the art based on Dr. Long’s definition (Dr. Konchitsky does not provide
`
`a definition of a person of skill in the art). (Id. at 2.) A person of skill in the art
`
`would have had several years of practical experience working in operating
`
`systems, in particular the data storage subsystem (or the equivalent post-graduate
`
`academic work). There is nothing in Dr. Konchitsky’s CV that shows this requisite
`
`practical or educational experience. (Id. at 12.)
`
`
`
`Proxyconn has the burden of establishing that Dr. Konchitsky’s testimony is
`
`admissible based on his “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
`
`FRE 702; see also Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1361 (placing burden on propounding
`
`party “to explain how [expert] possesses the relevant expertise in the pertinent
`
`art”). Courts determine whether expert testimony is reliable by assessing whether
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`the expert is qualified in the relevant field. Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys
`
`Networks, Inc., 395 Fed. App. 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“General experience in a
`
`related field may not suffice when experience and skill in specific product design
`
`are necessary to resolve patent issues.”); Flex-Rext, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc., 455
`
`F3d 1351, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming exclusion of expert’s testimony
`
`where expert did not show that his expertise was in the particular field at issue).
`
`Microsoft challenged Dr. Konchitsky’s expertise in its May 29 Objections (Ex.
`
`1027), during Dr. Konchitsky’s July 2 deposition (Ex. 1024), in its August 21
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, and in Dr. Long’s August 1 declaration (Ex.
`
`1025). To date, Proxyconn has not come forth with any rebuttal evidence that Dr.
`
`Konchitsky is an expert in the field, showing that he has the requisite “knowledge,
`
`skill, experience, training, or education.” As such, Proxyconn has not met its
`
`burden and Dr. Konchitsky’s testimony is inadmissible.
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Konchitksy Lacks Sufficient
`Knowledge To Testify As An Expert
`
`Dr. Konchitsky is not sufficiently familiar with the technologies at issue in
`
`this IPR to testify as an expert. For example, he is “generally familiar” with but
`
`“would need to read [] again” the GET request in the HTTP protocol. (Ex. 1024 at
`
`22:6-22.) The HTTP protocol is discussed in several of the references at issue in
`
`this IPR (Ex. 1003 at 10; Ex. 1004 at 14:4-5), and is cited prior art to the ’717
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`patent. An HTTP GET request identifies the desired resource by its URL, and is
`
`basic knowledge that a person of skill in the art in 1998-99 would have known.
`
`(Ex. 1025 at 5.) Yet, Dr. Konchitsky was not familiar enough with any of the
`
`methods of the HTTP protocol, including the GET method, to testify about them.
`
`Dr. Konchitsky “do[es] not recall” the details of caching servers (Ex. 1024 at
`
`110:15-111:12), even though caching servers are a fundamental part of distributed
`
`data storage systems, networking, and the World Wide Web (Ex. 1025 at 6). The
`
`’717 patent discusses “[m]any known applications and protocols … for caching
`
`and verifying of data transmitted via a network.” (’717 patent at 1:18-20.) Dr.
`
`Konchitsky cannot be an expert discussing the ’717 patent when he is unfamiliar
`
`with the basics of the technology at issue.
`
`Likewise, Dr. Konchitsky is unfamiliar with Harvest or Squid web caches
`
`(Ex. 1024 at 150:15-20, 153:11-12.) Both these web caches deal with reducing
`
`network bandwidth consumption, the same subject as the ’717 patent, are cited in
`
`the prior art (Ex. 1004 at 13; Ex. 1010 at 33), and are well-known in the field (Ex.
`
`1025 at 7). Yet, Dr. Konchitsky is unfamiliar with them.
`
`Dr. Konchitsky inaccurately defined NFS and LBFS, and was unfamiliar
`
`with AFS and Sprite. (Ex. 1024 at 150:21-152:5.) NFS, LBFS, and Sprite are data
`
`storage systems with which an expert in the field would be familiar, and AFS has
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`been required reading in graduate courses in distributed systems and data storage
`
`for over 20 years. (Ex. 1025 at 9.) NFS is the network file system developed by
`
`Sun Microsystems (id.); yet Dr. Konchitsky erroneously testified that it was “one
`
`of those file systems” and that “there has been several of them” (Ex. 1024 at
`
`151:24, 152:4-5). LBFS is a specific network file system developed at MIT (Ex.
`
`1025 at 9); yet Dr. Konchitsky testified that he did not remember the acronym, and
`
`did not know that it was created at MIT (Ex. 1024 at 150:21-22, 151:6-12). AFS is
`
`a seminal distributed network file system developed at Carnegie Mellon (Ex. 1025
`
`at 9-10); yet Dr. Konchitsky knew only that it was “a kind of file system” but did
`
`not know anything else about it (Ex. 1024 at 151:13-18.) Sprite is a distributed
`
`operating system developed at UC Berkeley known for its caching techniques (Ex.
`
`1025 at 10); yet Dr. Konchitsky had not heard of it (Ex. 1024 at 151:19-22).
`
`Dr. Konchitsky misunderstood the Rysnc protocol (Ex. 1024 at 152:6-
`
`153:1), which uses chunk-based encoding to synchronize files over a network
`
`while reducing the consumption of network bandwidth—a technology that an
`
`expert in this field should understand (Ex. 1025 at 10). Dr. Konchitsky
`
`misunderstood Venti (Ex. 1024 at 153:7-10), a single-instance network storage
`
`system that uses hashes of data blocks as the address of the data (Ex. 1025 at 11).
`
`And he misunderstood Ross Williams’s work (Ex. 1024 at 153:23-154:12), which
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`includes a seminal patent on data deduplication and compression (Ex. 1025 at 11).
`
`Finally, he had not heard of Xdelta (Ex. 1024 at 153:2-4), an open source utility for
`
`computing the differences between files (Ex. 1025 at 10).
`
`Given Dr. Konchitsky’s lack of familiarity and knowledge of this exemplary
`
`list of technologies and systems well-known in the field, it is clear that Dr.
`
`Konchitsky does not have sufficient knowledge to testify as an expert in this field.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Konchitsky Lacks Sufficient
`Experience To Testify As An Expert
`
`Dr. Konchitsky’s CV shows that he has had experience in “distributed
`
`computing” and “client server” (Exs. 2003 (CV submitted by Proxyconn for this
`
`IPR) and 1022 (publicly-available CV)), but these are broad categories. His
`
`patents, work experience, and writings do not show that he has had any specific,
`
`relevant experience in these categories. (Id.)
`
`Based on what is listed on Dr. Konchitsky’s CV, Dr. Konchitsky does not
`
`have a patent related to data storage, distributed data storage systems and
`
`networking, coding theory, or cryptographic hash functions. (See Exs. 2003, 1022;
`
`see also, Ex. 1025 at 12-13; Ex. 1024 at 149:21-25.) Even more telling, Dr.
`
`Konchitsky’s CV lists his areas of “Expertise,” none of which are relevant to the
`
`’717 patent and the prior art asserted in this IPR. (Ex. 1022 at 1.) Accordingly,
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Dr. Konchitsky does not present any experience that would qualify him as an
`
`expert in this field.
`
`B. Dr. Konchitsky Has No Personal
`Knowledge On Which To Base His Testimony
`
`Dr. Konchitsky does not purport to have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`testified to in his Declaration. (See FRE 602, 701.) He was not involved with the
`
`development of any of the prior art and he was not involved with the ’717 patent.
`
`His testimony is introduced solely as expert testimony under FRE 702. As
`
`explained above, Dr. Konchitsky does not qualify as an expert under FRE 702.
`
`C. Dr. Konchitsky’s Testimony
`Does Not Meet The Requirements Of FRE 702
`
`Dr. Konchitsky’s testimony, if used as expert testimony, does not meet the
`
`standards of FRE 702. As explained above, Dr. Konchitsky does not have the
`
`requisite understanding of data storage technologies and systems necessary to
`
`understand the field, prior art references, motivations to combine, and similarities
`
`or differences between references and the ’717 patent. He therefore could not have
`
`“based [his testimony] on sufficient facts or data,” as required by FRE 702(b).
`
`Dr. Konchitsky does not provide any testimony regarding the person of skill
`
`in the art, for example, the experience, education, and skill of a person of skill in
`
`the art. Dr. Konchitsky does not define the field of the invention, beyond this
`
`statement: “The ‘717 Patent relates to data access. As described in the
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Background (col. 1, lines 8-26) the problem addressed is a client computer
`
`requesting data from a remote computer.” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 13.) Yet Dr. Konchitsky
`
`testified that he viewed the patent and prior art from the perspective of this
`
`undefined person of ordinary skill in the art in 1998 (see id. ¶¶ 12, 14) and
`
`repeatedly testified as to what a person of skill in the art would understand (see id.
`
`¶¶ 15, 19, 21, 22, 27, 33, 41, 42, 48, 51, 57, 63, 66, 69). Without a definition of a
`
`“person having ordinary skill in the art” and a description of the “art” or field, Dr.
`
`Konchitsky’s testimony does not provide any basis to determine what a person of
`
`skill in the art would have understood: there is no basis on which to identify that
`
`person of skill.2 Thus, there is no way to determine whether Dr. Konchitsky’s
`
`“testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods” under FRE 702(c).
`
`Finally, Dr. Konchitsky did not “reliably appl[y] the principles and methods
`
`to the facts of the case.” FRE 702(d). He did not have a grasp of the basic facts
`
`based on his experience and knowledge in the field of data storage to understand
`
`the art and technology at issue. And he did not define the methods he was using to
`
`define the art and technology because he failed to define the person of skill in the
`
`art. Together and alone, these failures render his opinion inadmissible.
`
`
`2 The definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art is relevant to understanding
`what is claimed in the ’717 patent and a determination of whether the ’717 patent is anticipated
`or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the Declaration of Alon Konchitsky (Ex.
`
`2002) is inadmissible.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 14, 2013
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John D. Vandenberg/
`John D. Vandenberg
`Registration No. 31,312
`Stephen J. Joncus
`Registration No. 44,809
`Salumeh R. Loesch
`Pro Hac Vice
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of Microsoft Corporation’s
`
`Corrected Motion to Exclude Evidence, was served on the official correspondence
`
`address for the U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 shown in PAIR and the attorneys of
`
`record for Plaintiff in this proceeding and in the concurrent litigation matter:
`
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK
`DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 BONHOMME, SUITE 400
`ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
`
`via EMAIL on October 14, 2013, and EXPRESS MAIL on October 15, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`By /John D. Vandenberg/
`
`John D. Vandenberg, Reg. No. 31,312
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket