`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2012-00042
`
`
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376
`Application No.:
`09/127,587
` Filed:
`July 31, 1998
` Issued:
`May 29, 2001
`
`Alain Raynaud
`Luc M. Burgun
`
`Patent Owner: Mentor Graphics
`Corporation
`
`METHOD AND
`APPARATUS FOR GATE-
`LEVEL SIMULATION OF
`SYNTHESIZED
`REGISTER TRANSFER
`LEVEL DESIGNS WITH
`SOURCE-LEVEL
`DEBUGGING
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.
`
`
`007121.00004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inventors:
`
`For:
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`DECLARATION TESTIMONY OF DR. BRAD HUTCHINGS UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §42.64(c)
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
` IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`Patent Owner properly preserved its right to move to exclude the declaration
`
`testimony of Dr. Hutchings, by timely objecting to the testimony once the
`
`deficiency in the basis of Dr. Hutchings’ opinions was revealed in cross-
`
`examination. The bases for the objection were not evident from the declaration
`
`itself. Petitioner’s attempts to justify Dr. Hutchings’ reliance on the contingency
`
`of a Board ruling of anticipation, in place of considering and forming an opinion
`
`regarding the scope and meaning of the contingent amended claims in their
`
`entirety, fail to establish admissibility of the testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`I. Patent Owner’s Objection was Timely
`Petitioner urges that the basis for Patent Owner’s objection was evident from
`
`Dr. Hutchings’ declaration itself, and thus that Patent Owner’s objection was
`
`untimely. Petitioner’s Opposition (Paper No. 48) at 3. This is incorrect. There is
`
`no indication in Dr. Hutchings’ declaration that he had failed to consider the
`
`amended claims in their entirety. To the contrary, Dr. Hutchings’ declaration
`
`indicates that he had reviewed the `376 patent and Patent Owner’s Substitute
`
`Motion To Amend (see Hutchings Decl. (Ex. 1013) at ¶ 9), and that his opinions
`
`were based on that review. Id. at ¶ 11. Further, Dr. Hutchings acknowledged in
`
`his declaration that “claim terms are to be construed in light of the surrounding
`
`claim language . . . .” Id. at ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Nowhere does Dr. Hutchings’
`
`declaration indicate what cross-examination revealed to be the case. Dr. Hutchings
`
`1
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
`IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`did not consider or form an opinion about the unamended portions of the proposed
`
`substitute claims. Instead, he relied on the contingency of the Board finding the
`
`original claims anticipated by Gregory as a reason not to consider these portions.
`
`As set forth in detail in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 42),
`
`the limited nature of Dr. Hutchings’ review and consideration of the amended
`
`claims was revealed in his cross-examination. Id. at 5-8. Thus, it was not until
`
`completion of cross-examination of Dr. Hutchings that Patent Owner had a basis
`
`for raising its objection. Patent Owner made its objection within five business
`
`days following the deposition where the bases for the objection arose, and thus
`
`Patent Owner should be considered to have timely objected within the spirit of
`
`Rule 42.64(b)(1).
`
`II. Dr. Hutchings’ Opinions, Based Only On Amended Portions of the
`Claims, Are Incompetent and Inadmissable under Fed. R. Evid. 702
`Petitioner relies on the law of the case doctrine in its attempt to justify the
`
`incomplete bases for its expert’s opinions. But this doctrine has no application to
`
`the current scenario.1 First, there is no law of the case in this IPR regarding
`
`
`1 The case principally relied upon by petitioner, Transocean Offshore Deepwater
`
`Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
`
`provides no support for Petitioner’s position. The Court there merely held that it
`
`was error to permit a “jury to engage in fact finding regarding whether [two prior
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
`IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`unpatentability of the patent claims at issue. Secondly, Dr. Hutchings is
`
`Petitioner’s proffered expert offering an evidentiary opinion, not a party or fact
`
`finder (e.g., jury). Regardless of any law of the case, Dr. Hutchings’ opinions must
`
`be well founded in order to be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702. They are not.
`
`Dr. Hutchings apparently agrees, a priori, with a decision the Board has yet
`
`to make. With respect to elements of the original patent claims that are also
`
`present in the amended claims, he relies solely on the contingency of the Board
`
`finding the patent claims in the trial to be anticipated by Gregory. Blindly
`
`presuming how the Board might ultimately rule, Dr. Hutchings fails to fulfill his
`
`obligation as a testifying expert to consider all the facts necessary to provide a
`
`well-founded opinion.
`
`
`
`art references] disclose all of the claim elements,” given a prior decision that had
`
`concluded that the two references presented a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`Id.at 1348. What Petitioner failed to mention is the Court’s further holding that “it
`
`was not error to allow the jury to consider the strength of that prima facie case in
`
`making the ultimate determination of obviousness. When the ultimate question of
`
`obviousness is put to the jury, the jury must be able to review all of the evidence of
`
`obviousness.” Id. at 1349. Petitioner’s other case citations, none of which deal
`
`with a scenario comparable to the instant one, are similarly inapposite.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
`IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`Contrary to the premise of Petitioner’s argument, a Board decision that the
`
`original claims are anticipated by Gregory would not eliminate the need for a
`
`consideration of the amended claims in their entirety. The amended portions of the
`
`claims must be considered in the context of the claims as a whole.2 They are not
`
`independent modules that can be lifted from the claims and considered in isolation.
`
`For example, one cannot competently opine on whether Gregory discloses
`
`alone, or renders obvious in view of the alleged knowledge of one skilled in the art,
`
`the amended claim 34 portion without considering and forming an opinion
`
`regarding the meaning and scope of the original claim 34 portions. The amended
`
`portion of claim 34 reads, “generating instrumentation logic to provide the
`
`instrumentation signal, the instrumentation logic comprising instrumentation logic
`
`circuitry that is additional to circuitry specified in the source code.” This amended
`
`portion is further defined by the original claim 34 recitation of “the instrumentation
`
`signal being indicative of an execution status of the at least one statement [within
`
`the RTL synthesized source code].” When asked whether it is possible “to create a
`
`signal indicating execution status without additional logic gates” (emphasis added)
`
`Dr. Hutchings could not answer the question because he had formed no opinion
`
`
`
`2 Dr. Hutchings acknowledged this requirement (see Hutchings Decl. (Ex. 1013) at
`
`¶ 14), but admittedly failed to fulfill it.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
`IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`about “execution status” (the subject matter of the original claim). Hutchings Dep.
`
`T. (Ex. 2032) at 94. Thus, even with Dr. Hutchings’ assumption that the Board
`
`will have found the original limitations anticipated by Gregory, Dr. Hutchings has
`
`no idea if or how the scope of the amended features is affected by the original
`
`claim features, because he admittedly did not consider those original features. Dr.
`
`Hutchings’ opinion on the scope of the proposed amended claims is incomplete
`
`and lacks the necessary foundation to be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the above reasons, and those given in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper No. 42), the declaration of Dr. Hutchings (Ex. 1013) should be excluded
`
`from evidence.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Christopher L. McKee/
`Christopher L. McKee
`Registration No. 32,384
`Michael S. Cuviello
`Registration No. 59,255
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`1100 13th Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Reply In Support of Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude
`
` IPR2012-00042
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service on the Petitioner, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(e) and agreement of the parties, by email delivery of a true copy of the
`
`foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE DECLARATION TESTIMONY OF DR. BRAD HUTCHINGS
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.64(c) to counsel of record for Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William H. Wright, Esq.
`
`wwright@orrick.com
`
`Travis Jensen, Esq.
`
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Christopher L. McKee/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`