`
`____________
`
`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)
`
`