`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION, and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)
`____________
`
`CASES : IPR2013-00007
`CASES : IPR2013-00256
`
`Patent Nos. : 7,461,353
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2), in response to Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 (“Patent Owner’s
`
`Objections”), Petitioners Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`
`hereby submit supplemental evidence in the form of: (1) a Supplemental
`
`Reply Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (PX 1052) (“Supplemental
`
`Grimes Reply Declaration”); (2) a Supplemental Declaration of Richard J.
`
`Lutz, Ph.D. (PX 1053) (“Supplemental Lutz Declaration”); and (3) revised
`
`exhibit PX 1032, which includes pages that Patent Owner advised
`
`Petitioners were relevant and should be included.
`
`The Supplemental Grimes Reply Declaration is submitted in response
`
`to Section II.A of Patent Owner’s Objections.
`
`In particular,
`
`the
`
`Supplemental Grimes Declaration rebuts Patent Owner’s Objections that Dr.
`
`Grimes belatedly advances new claim construction positions,
`
`that Dr.
`
`Grimes proposes new theories of obviousness based on combinations of
`
`references with the Zaurus references, that Dr. Grimes raises new invalidity
`
`theories based on new prior art references, that Dr. Grimes raises new and
`
`belated evidence, and that Dr. Grimes advances irrelevant testimony.
`
`The Supplemental Lutz Declaration is submitted in response to
`
`Section II.E of Patent Owner’s Objections. In particular, the Supplemental
`
`Lutz Declaration rebuts Patent Owner’s Objections that Dr. Lutz’s opinions
`
`
`
`are based on insufficient facts and data, and are the product of unreliable
`
`principles and methods unreliably applied to the facts of this case.
`
`Petitioners put Patent Owner on notice that several statements in
`
`Patent Owners’ objections fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1) because
`
`they fail
`
`to “identify the grounds for
`
`the objection with sufficient
`
`particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.”
`
`Petitioners reserve all responses to Patent Owners’ objections, and
`
`will present them in response to a motion to exclude evidence, if filed by the
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Date:October15,2013
`
`Respectfullysubmitted,
`KATTENMUCHINROSENMANLLP
`BY:
`___/RichardP.Bauer/_____
`RichardP.Bauer(Reg.No.31,588)
`
`
`
`KATTENMUCHINROSENMANLLP
`2900KStreetNW-Suite200
`Washington,DC20007-5118
`Richard.Bauer@kattenlaw.com
`EricC.Cohen(Reg.No.27,429)
`MichaelS.Dorfman(Reg.No.46,669)
`MichaelS.Tomsa(Reg.No.64,264)
`KATTENMUCHINROSENMANLLP
`525W.MonroeStreet
`Chicago,IL60661-3693
`Eric.Cohen@kattenlaw.com
`Michael.Dorfman@kattenlaw.com
`Michael.Tomsa@kattenlaw.com
`JohnC.Alemanni(Reg.No.47,384)
`KILPATRICKTOWNSEND&STOCKTON,LLP
`1001WestFourthStreet
`Winston-Salem,NC27101-2400
`JAlemanni@KilpatrickTownsend.com
`DavidA.Reed(Reg.No.61,226)
`KILPATRICKTOWNSEND&STOCKTON,LLP
`Suite2800,1100PeachtreeStreetNE
`Atlanta,GA,30309-4528
`DAReed@KilpatrickTownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Kyocera Corp.
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Motorola
`Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6, I hereby certify that on Tuesday, October
`
`15, 2013, a true copy of the accompanying PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF
`
`FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) was served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the
`
`parties, upon the following:
`
`Babak Redjaian
`bredjaian@irell.com
`Ben Yorks
`byorks@irell.com
`Morgan Chu
`mchu@irell.com
`Alan J. Heinrich
`aheinrich@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`
`Respectfullysubmitted,
`___/RichardP.Bauer/_____
`KattenMuchinRosenmanLLP
`RichardP.Bauer(Reg.No.31,588)
`
`
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
