`
`
`
`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
`
`