`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00007
`CASE IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353.
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`2891987
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned, on behalf of SoftView LLC ("Patent Owner"), hereby
`
`provides Notice to the Board that the objections made on the record herewith were
`
`served to Kyocera Corporation ("Kyocera") and Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`("Motorola") (collectively "Petitioners") pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. See also
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 30, 2013
`
`By: /Ben Yorks/
`
`
`
` Ben Yorks
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Ben Yorks, Esq.
`PTO Reg. No. 33,609
`Babak Redjaian, Esq.
`PTO Reg. No. 42,096
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Fax: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`SoftView LLC
`
`
`2891987
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00007
`CASE IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353.
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`2891987
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of SoftView
`
`LLC ("Patent Owner"), hereby submits the following objections to Exhibits PX
`
`1030-1049 submitted with Kyocera Corporation's ("Kyocera") and Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC's ("Motorola") (collectively "Petitioners") Consolidated Reply to
`
`Patent Owner's Response ("Reply") dated September 23, 2013. See IPR2013-
`
`00007, Paper No. 28 (and exhibits thereto). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent
`
`Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence ("F.R.E.").
`
`II. OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`A. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT PX 1030 (REPLY DECLARATION
`OF JACK D. GRIMES) AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit PX 1030, Reply Declaration of Jack
`
`D. Grimes, Ph.D., dated September 13, 2013 ("Grimes Reply Declaration").
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of
`
`Supplemental Evidence), F.R.E. 602 (Lack of Personal Knowledge), F.R.E. 801,
`
`802 (Impermissible Hearsay), 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (Outside Scope of Response
`
`and Petition), Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)), 42.104(b) (belated identification of challenge), F.R.E.
`
`702, 703 (impermissible expert testimony).
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Belatedly Advances New Claim Construction
`Positions in Violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`The USPTO Rules and Regulations require the Petitioner to set forth its
`
`claim construction positions in the Petition.
`
`42.104. Content of petition.
`In addition to the requirements of §§ 42.6, 42.8, 42.22, and
`42.24, the petition must set forth:
`…
`(b) Identification of challenge. Provide a statement of the
`precise relief requested for each claim challenged. The statement
`must identify the following:
`…
`(3) How the challenged claim is to be construed. . . .
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). (Emphasis added.)
`
`According to the USPTO, a purpose of this requirement is to provide the
`
`Patent Owner an adequate opportunity to address Petitioner's arguments in its
`
`response. "The Office believes that the petitioner’s claim construction requirement
`
`will improve the efficiency of the proceeding. As discussed previously, the
`
`petitioner’s claim construction will help to provide sufficient notice to patent
`
`owner on the proposed grounds of unpatentability . . . ." Changes to Implement
`
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review Proceedings, and Transitional
`
`Program for Covered Business Method, Patents, 77 Fed Reg. 48,680, 48,700
`
`(August 14, 2012). Petitioners have failed to do so.
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`In its Petitions, Petitioners submitted Patent Owner's proposed constructions
`
`from the Underlying Litigation.1 Petition, at 4-5. However, nowhere in the
`
`Petitions do the Petitioners address the claim construction for the "preserving . . ."
`
`limitations in the claims at issue in this Inter Partes Review. This phrase was
`
`hotly contested in the Underlying Litigation in which both Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Grimes took the position that the phrase is indefinite. Now, however, for the first
`
`time, the Petitioners and Dr. Grimes seek to introduce a new claim construction in
`
`their Reply and in the Grimes Reply Declaration – which is inconsistent with the
`
`positions they took in the Underlying Litigation. Moreover, Dr. Grimes appears to
`
`base his entire invalidity theories on the new construction.
`
`For example, the Grimes Reply Declaration includes a section entitled,
`
`"Construction of 'preserves the original page layout, functionality, and design of
`
`the web page content'," (§ IV, ¶¶ 25-55) in which Dr. Grimes expounds on
`
`Petitioner's new position regarding the appropriate construction of those claim
`
`terms based on a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. However, no attempt
`
`was made to set forth a construction for these terms in the original Petition, as
`
`required by the Inter Partes Review rules, despite the fact that Petitioner's
`
`invalidity arguments now appear to rely on the new construction. Though
`
`Petitioners could have set forth their position on the construction of these terms in
`
`
`1 SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., and AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 10-389-
`LPS (D. Del.) ("the Underlying Litigation").
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`the original Petition, where such construction is actually required (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)), they instead chose to wait and only propose their construction by way
`
`of the Reply and the accompanying Grimes Reply Declaration, when Patent Owner
`
`no longer has an opportunity under the Inter Partes Review procedure to respond
`
`to that construction. This is grossly prejudicial to the Patent Owner and a clear
`
`violation of the letter and spirit of the rules, which require claim construction
`
`positions to be set forth at the outset rather than at the closing of arguments.
`
`Further, Dr. Grimes' new opinions on claim construction (e.g., § IV, ¶¶ 25-
`
`55) could have been included in Dr. Grimes' declaration that accompanied the
`
`petition. Petitioners' attempt to belatedly offer this testimony in the Grimes Reply
`
`Declaration is not rebuttal evidence. By submitting the Grimes Reply Declaration
`
`with its Reply, Petitioner violated the letter and the spirit of the rules by attempting
`
`to prevent Patent Owner from having the opportunity to review and address these
`
`new theories and statements of alleged fact and/or expert opinion. The Grimes
`
`Reply Declaration is both outside the scope of Patent Owner's Response and
`
`impermissible supplemental evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part
`
`II, § I).
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Belatedly Advances New Invalidity Theories in
`Violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`The USPTO Rules and Regulations require that the Reply only respond to
`
`arguments raised in the opposition and not raise new issue or belatedly present
`
`evidence. In particular, "[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`
`corresponding opposition or patent owner response." 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The
`
`Trial Practice Guide explains:
`
`[A] reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence
`will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not
`attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples
`of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new
`evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the …
`unpatentability of an original … claim, and new evidence that could
`have been presented in a prior filing.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`Petitioner cites the Grimes Reply Declaration as allegedly rebutting certain
`
`arguments presented by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner's Response to
`
`Petitioner's Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,461,353
`
`("Response"). The Grimes Reply Declaration is used by Petitioners to raise new
`
`theories and invalidity arguments in an effort to set forth a prima facie case of
`
`unpatentability of the claims, including new theories of obviousness based on
`
`combinations of references with the Zaurus references (PX 1004), entirely new
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`combinations of references, and new alleged motivations to combine or modify the
`
`references, all of which could have been submitted with the Petitioner's original
`
`Petition for review.
`
`As to Zaurus, Dr. Grimes opines by way of the Grimes Reply Declaration as
`
`to the disclosures of the Zaurus references (Grimes Reply Declaration, § VI, ¶¶ 99-
`
`109); obviousness of combinations of the Zaurus references with the Bederson
`
`references (Grimes Reply Declaration, §§ V, VII, XIII, ¶¶ 60, 110-117, 182);
`
`combinations of the Zaurus references with the Bederson and Hara references to
`
`disclose claimed zooming features (Grimes Reply Declaration, §§ VIII.A-B, ¶¶
`
`118-141); obviousness of combinations of the Zaurus references with the
`
`Tsutsumitake reference (Grimes Reply Declaration, § X.B, ¶ 173); obviousness of
`
`combinations of the Zaurus references with the Bederson and SVF references
`
`(Grimes Reply Declaration, § XI, ¶¶ 174-176); and obviousness of combinations of
`
`the Zaurus references with the SVG, Hara and Tsutsumitake references (Grimes
`
`Reply Declaration, § XII, ¶¶ 177-178 ).
`
`However, none of these theories of invalidity were addressed by Dr. Grimes
`
`in either of his two prior declarations (PX 1021, PX1022) submitted with
`
`Petitioner's Petition. In fact, the two prior declarations by Dr. Grimes both fail to
`
`make any mention of Zaurus whatsoever.
`
`Petitioner's effort to introduce evidence from Grimes regarding invalidity
`
`theories based on the Zaurus reference, having never presented such evidence
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`before though it could have done so, is a stark and glaring violation of this basic
`
`rule of fairness, in clear violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (August 14, 2012).
`
`The Grimes Reply Declaration includes numerous other violations that
`
`improperly raise new issues, raise new invalidity theories, and belatedly present
`
`evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.
`
`In particular, the Grimes Reply Declaration includes a State of the Art
`
`Section (¶¶ 142-165) that cites new alleged prior art and new invalidity theories.
`
`Dr. Grimes' belated presentation of these new issues and evidence, including new
`
`invalidity theories based on newly cited prior art, on which the Petitioners have
`
`shown a clear intent to rely, violates the rules and the Board's Order and is grossly
`
`prejudicial to the Patent Owner, who is afforded no further rebuttal opportunity
`
`under the rules of Inter Partes Review. Guarding against just such an overtly
`
`prejudicial outcome, the rules provide that, "A reply may only respond to
`
`arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response." 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Grimes Reply Declaration is both outside the scope of
`
`Patent Owner's Response and impermissible supplemental evidence, and should be
`
`excluded. 37 C.F.R. § 42.223; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); 36 C.F.R. § 42, Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I. Dr. Grimes' reliance on prior art under the guise
`
`of "the state of the art" appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to present new
`
`invalidity grounds, in violation of the Board's Order. In its Decision to institute
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of the '353 patent, the Board made it very clear that the trial is
`
`only limited to the grounds identified in the Decision and no other grounds are
`
`authorized. Decision, at 38-39 (IPR2013-00007, Paper No. 11). Petitioners could
`
`have presented the prior art in the original Petition.
`
`Other examples of violations in the Grimes Replay Declaration that
`
`improperly raise new issues and belatedly present evidence include: general
`
`discussions of the disclosures of the '926 and '353 patents (¶¶ 16-21); Grimes'
`
`opinion as to the relevance of the Bederson references to the problem of building a
`
`zooming web browser for one of ordinary skill in the art (¶ 59); discussion of the
`
`Opera browser (¶¶ 85-88); and the discussion of tap-to-zoom features in Pad++ (¶¶
`
`120-122, 130-135).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Advances Irrelevant Expert Testimony That Is
`Neither Responsive to Patent Owner Arguments Nor Cited
`in Petitioner's Reply
`
`Additionally, the Grimes Reply Declaration includes whole sections that are
`
`neither responsive to arguments made by way of the Patent Owner's Response, nor
`
`even cited or referenced by Petitioner's Reply. Instead, these sections appear to be
`
`included merely as part of a thinly veiled effort to circumvent the 15 page limit on
`
`replies to patent owner responses to petitions (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1)) and expand
`
`the space in which Petitioner can put forth its numerous, frequently brand new and
`
`alternative theories of invalidity.
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, the Grimes Reply Declaration includes discussions
`
`characterizing the cited art, including the Bederson references. These discussions
`
`could have been submitted earlier (e.g., as part of the Petition or an opening
`
`declaration), are not responsive to any arguments put forth by Patent Owner in its
`
`Response, and are not even cited anywhere in Petitioner's Reply. Grimes Reply
`
`Declaration, § V, ¶¶ 56-64. Other sections of the Grimes Reply Declaration are
`
`similarly unresponsive to any Patent Owner arguments set forth in the Response
`
`and are also not cited anywhere in Petitioner's Reply, including ¶¶ 1-23, 91-98,
`
`170-173 and 179-181. Inasmuch as these sections are beyond the scope of
`
`Petitioner's Reply, having not been cited therein, and are not responsive to Patent
`
`Owner's Response, they are irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be excluded. F.R.E.
`
`402, 403.
`
`All the statements contained in the Grimes Reply Declaration are out of
`
`court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute
`
`impermissible hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the Grimes Reply Declaration
`
`refers to out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein,
`
`and they also constitute impermissible hearsay. (Id.) Nor has a showing been made
`
`that a hearsay exception or exclusion applies.
`
`As demonstrated above, the contents of the Grimes Reply Declaration raise
`
`new issues and belatedly present new evidence, including new invalidity theories,
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`claim construction positions, and other opinions that could have been raised with
`
`the Petition, and thus should be stricken.
`
`B. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PX 1031, 1037-1042, 1045-1046
`AND ANY REFERENCE TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibits 1031, 1037-1042 and 1045-1046.
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice,
`
`confusion, waste of time, or other reasons), 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of
`
`supplemental evidence), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (Outside the scope of response
`
`and petition), Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)), and violates the Board's Order limiting the asserted
`
`grounds only to those identified in Section I and no other grounds (Decision,
`
`March 29, 2013, IPR2013-00007, Paper No. 11, at 38-39).
`
`Petitioners advance no position that may form a proper basis for the late
`
`submission of Exhibits 1031, 1037-1042 and 1045-1046. This new evidence is
`
`prejudicial and irrelevant to any issue properly raised in this proceeding. (F.R.E.
`
`402, 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.61). Exhibits 1031, 1037-1042 and 1045-1046 are used
`
`by Petitioners to present new invalidity theories and arguments in an effort to make
`
`out a prima facie case of unpatentability. (See F.R.E. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b),
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223, Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48767). Exhibits 1031, 1037-1042 and 1045-1046 raise new issues or belatedly
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`presents evidence, and are either inapposite or could have been submitted with the
`
`Petition, not with the Reply. Id.
`
`C. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PX 1043-1044 AND ANY
`REFERENCE TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibits PX 1043-1044, '353 and '926 Patent
`
`Claim Charts ("the Claim Charts").
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of
`
`Supplemental Evidence), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b), Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)) (raised new
`
`issues or belatedly presents evidence), 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c) (exceeds page limit),
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Here, again, Petitioner attempts to advance new invalidity arguments to
`
`establish a prima facie case of obviousness via exhibits attached to its Reply, rather
`
`than in the body of its original Petition, as required by the rules of this proceeding.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b) (identification of challenge). Specifically, the rules require
`
`that the Petitioner identify in its Petition, "How the construed claim is
`
`unpatentable," and requires that, "The petition must specify where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon." 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(4). Here, however, Petitioner has waited until the time of its
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply, at which point the Patent Owner has no further opportunity for response, to
`
`specify for the first time locations in the cited art which Petitioner alleges teach or
`
`render obvious aspects of the asserted claims. The belated submission of these
`
`new invalidity arguments/grounds are not based on any argument made by Patent
`
`Owner in its Response. Instead, if Petitioner intended to rest its case for invalidity
`
`on these arguments/grounds, then it could have timely raised them in its Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, part II, § I (77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)). To entertain such new arguments/grounds at this
`
`late stage would be grossly prejudicial to Patent Owner, who heretofore has had no
`
`opportunity to consider these specific arguments/grounds and is provided no
`
`subsequent opportunity to properly challenge them. F.R.E. 403.
`
`D. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PX 1032 AND ANY
`REFERENCE TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibits PX 1032, deposition testimony of
`
`Pad++ developer Mr. Bederson regarding features and functionality of the Pad++
`
`system ("the Bederson Testimony").
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 106 (Incompleteness), F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311 (testimony not patents or printed publications), 37 C.F.R. § 42.223
`
`(Filing of Supplemental Evidence).
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner cites, by way of the Grimes Reply Declaration (¶¶ 123-128), to the
`
`deposition testimony of Dr. Bederson, developer of the Pad++ zoomable user
`
`interface. These citations are plainly intended to fill in the gaps of the Pad++
`
`references themselves. Id. However, Bederson's deposition testimony cannot
`
`substitute for the disclosures of the actual references written by Bederson (PX
`
`1006) that Petitioner has alleged qualify as prior art to the claims at issue. Krippelz
`
`v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he opinions of [Mr.
`
`Krippelz's expert] are not a substitute for the actual [prior art] disclosure").
`
`Bederson's present testimony cannot substitute or supplement the actual disclosures
`
`of past references alleged to be prior art, and its introduction for that purpose is
`
`inapposite. Accordingly, the Bederson Testimony is irrelevant in this context
`
`(F.R.E. 402), can serve only to prejudice the Patent Owner and confuse the issue of
`
`invalidity (F.R.E. 403), and should be excluded.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner has selectively introduced portions of the Bederson
`
`Testimony while neglecting to introduce other portions which, in fairness, ought to
`
`be considered at the same time. In view of the fact that Patent Owner is afforded
`
`no further opportunity to introduce evidence under the rules of this proceeding,
`
`Petitioner's belated and selective introduction of testimony results in a violation of
`
`the principle of fairness embodied in F.R.E. 106.2
`
`
`2 "If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an
`adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part – or any
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`E. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT PX 1049 AND ANY REFERENCE
`TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibit PX 1049, Declaration of Richard J.
`
`Lutz, Ph.D., dated September 17, 2013 ("Lutz Declaration").
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 402 (Relevance); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons);
`
`F.R.E. 702 (Impermissible Expert Testimony); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible
`
`Hearsay).
`
`Petitioner cites to the Lutz Declaration as allegedly supporting its arguments
`
`against secondary considerations of non-obviousness set forth in patent Owner's
`
`Response. However, the Lutz Declaration is the based on insufficient facts and
`
`data, and is the product of unreliable principles and methods unreliably applied to
`
`the facts of this case. In numerous instances, Dr. Lutz has drawn factual and legal
`
`conclusions from scant evidence based on questionable inferences, failing to
`
`satisfy the evidentiary standards for testimony by expert witnesses. F.R.E. 702.
`
`All the statements contained in the Lutz Declaration are out of court statements
`
`offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein and constitute impermissible
`
`hearsay. (F.R.E. 801, 802). Further, the Lutz Declaration refers to out of court
`
`statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, and they also
`
`constitute impermissible hearsay. (Id.) Nor has a showing been made that a
`
`other writing or recorded statement – that in fairness ought to be considered at the
`same time." F.R.E. 106.
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`hearsay exception or exclusion applies. The conclusions attested to in his
`
`declaration are at best irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding (F.R.E. 402), and
`
`are likely to result in unfair prejudice to Patent Owner, as well as confusion of the
`
`issues before the Board (F.R.E. 403).
`
`F. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PX 1033-1036 AND ANY
`REFERENCE TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibits PX 1033-1036, comprising video
`
`files of Apple iPhone commercials ("the Apple Ads").
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of
`
`Supplemental Evidence).
`
`G. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PX 1047-1048 AND ANY
`REFERENCE TO/RELIANCE THEREON
`
`Patent Owner hereby objects to Exhibits PX 1047-1048, comprising
`
`deposition testimony of inventor Gary Rohrabaugh and patent attorney Robert
`
`Alan Burnett ("the SoftView Testimony").
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (Admissibility of Evidence),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (Relevance), F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.223 (Filing of
`
`Supplemental Evidence).
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For at least these reasons, the Patent Owner objects to Exhibits PX 1030-
`
`1049 attached to Petitioner's reply to Patent Owner's Response, and objects to the
`
`citations to those Exhibits in Petitioner's Reply and in the Grimes Reply
`
`Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 30, 2013
`
`By: /Ben Yorks/
`
`
`
` Ben Yorks
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Ben Yorks, Esq.
`PTO Reg. No. 33,609
`Babak Redjaian, Esq.
`PTO Reg. No. 42,096
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Fax: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`SoftView LLC
`
`
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on September 30,
`
`2013, a copy of the foregoing documents PATENT OWNER'S NOTICE OF
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64 were served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, upon
`the following:
`
`
`Richard P. Bauer (richard.bauer@kattenlaw.com)
`Michael Tomsa (michael.tomsa@kattenlaw.com)
`Eric C. Cohen (eric.cohen@kattenlaw.com)
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`2900 K Street NW – Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20007-5118
`(202) 625-3500 (tel)
`(202) 298-7570 (fax)
`
`
`Counsel for Kyocera Corporation.
`
`
`
`
`John C. Alemanni (jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`Candice C. Decaire (CDecaire@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`David A. Reed (DaReed@kilpatricktownsend.com)
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
`(336) 607-7311 (tel)
`(336) 734-2621 (fax)
`
`
`Counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Babak Redjaian/
`
`
`
`
`
`2891987
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Case IPR2013-00007
`
`
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
