Filed on behalf of ABB, Inc.
`
`By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921)
`Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ABB, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Trial No. IPR2013-00062 (joined with IPR2013-00282)
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`____________
`
`ABB’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921)
`Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ABB, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Trial No. IPR2013-00062 (joined with IPR2013-00282)
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`____________
`
`ABB’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`RGB’s Motion Is Improper ................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ABB’s Reply Responded To The Issues Raised By RGB .................... 2
`
`Drs. Papanikolopoulos And Voyles Testimony Is Admissible ............. 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Drs. Papanikolopolous And Voyles Offer Facts
`In Addition To Opinions Based On The Cited Art ..................... 8
`
`Expert Testimony
`(Via Declaration) Is Not An “Expert Report” ..........................11
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Papanikolopolous Applied The Law Correctly ..................12
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Avaya, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00071, Paper 75, Dec. 2, 2013 ................................................................ 1
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................13
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP 2143.03 ........................................................................................................... 9
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................................................... 2
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Rules of Practice,
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48633 ............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`ABB timely submits this Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence (Paper #59). RGB moved to exclude: “(1) arguments raised for the first
`
`time in ABB’s reply (“Reply”); (2) new alleged grounds of un-patentability outside
`
`of the scope of the initial Petition and Institution Decision (“I.D.”); and (3) the
`
`expert testimony of Dr. Papanikolopoulos (“Dr. P.”) and portions of Dr. Voyles’
`
`declaration…” For at least the reasons set forth below, RGB’s motion should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`RGB’s motion to exclude makes clear that it either misunderstands the
`
`technology, misunderstood ABB’s reply, or is seeking to obfuscate the issues.
`
`A. RGB’s Motion Is Improper
`
`As they Board has stated, a motion to exclude should be directed at the
`
`admissibility of evidence, not the sufficiency of evidence, credibility of witnesses,
`
`or whether new arguments may have been raised in a reply. Avaya, Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00071, Paper 75, Dec. 2, 2013 (“a
`
`motion to strike or motion to exclude is not the proper mechanism for raising the
`
`issue of whether a reply or reply evidence is beyond the proper scope permitted
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`under the rules” -- citing Rules of Practice, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48633 and Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`Thus, RGB’s Motion is improper on its face, and should be denied.
`
`B. ABB’s Reply Responded To The Issues Raised By RGB
`
`ABB has not raised new arguments or new grounds of unpatentability; it
`
`responded to the assertions made in RGB’s papers.
`
`RGB did not provide persuasive evidence supporting its interpretation of the
`
`claims in its preliminary, primary, or supplemental responses. Rather, RGB
`
`appears to have been reduced to the two pronged argument that: 1) the claimed
`
`functions and component code include only “executable” functions/code, and 2)
`
`the prior art does not teach executable functions associated with one another by
`
`executable code. Accordingly, ABB’s reply pointed out that, with respect to the
`
`first prong of RGB’s argument:
`
`However, “computer code” encompasses more than executable machine
`
`language, rather it includes any form of control flow, including visual
`
`programming constructs. (Ex. 1130, ¶¶ 21-22, 39; Ex. 1132, ¶ 55-56; 236
`
`Patent, Fig. 1A, “Visual Basic”).
`
`…
`
`However, the term “function” encompasses more than executable machine
`
`language instructions. Rather, “function” broadly encompasses “in-line”
`
`functions, constructs in scripting languages, interpreted languages, and also
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`visual programming constructs, regardless of how the program is stored or
`
`executed. (Ex. 1130, ¶ 39, 42-46). (Reply, 9-10)
`
`Indeed, neither the Board nor the district court has adopted a construction for
`
`the disputed terms that is limited to “executable code.”
`
`ABB’s reply also pointed out that, with respect to the second prong of
`
`RGB’s argument:
`
`Stewart identifies the executable functions of a PBO. (Id. at 47, 52). Of
`
`these, the “cycle” method is the function that executes the task represented
`
`by the PBO. (Id.; also Gertz at 56, Fig. 6). The others are simply constructor,
`
`destructor and error methods typically associated with OO programming
`
`techniques (Id. at 48, discussing init).
`
`As such, the PBOs taught by Gertz and Stewart provide the “driver
`
`function” limitation of the claims. The “cycle” function for any given PBO
`
`corresponds to executing the task represented by the PBO. By definition, a
`
`PBO for a “primitive operation” that sends commands to a motion control
`
`device has an association to a “core driver function.” (See e.g., Gertz, “joint
`
`move to q” discussed below).
`
`…
`
`While Dr. Stewart ignored the Board’s BRI, ordinary artisans would
`
`recognize that Onika is both a programming and execution environment
`
`(Gertz at §§ 1.1; 1.3; 5.9) and that the configuration files that it creates
`
`comprise software code that binds various components together into a
`
`programming sequence (including Turing equivalents) that have been the
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`basis of computer programming for over a century. (Ex. 1030, ¶ 37-39, 42-
`
`46). (Reply, 12-13).
`
`That is, in any case, Gertz’s tasks are executed – by the “cycle” function
`
`contained within the port based object – and are associated with one another by
`
`computer code. Thus, the “cycle” function (discussed by Dr. Stewart in his
`
`declaration at exhibit 2011, ¶ 11) illustrates that tasks are executed.
`
`ABB’s Reply does not present new “alleged grounds of un-patentability,”
`
`but merely responded to RGB’s strained arguments supported by the Stewart
`
`declarations. ABB’s Petition explained that Gertz’s control tasks, configurations,
`
`and actions, as well as their connections (i.e. associations) within Onika (Gertz,
`
`Fig. 1), met various claim limitations (e.g., driver functions, component functions,
`
`and component code.) Although the Board and district court have not limited these
`
`terms to “executable” code, RGB presented an analysis premised on Dr. Stewart’s
`
`memory of Onika/Chimera, asserting that Onika was not an execution
`
`environment. ABB’s Reply focused on portions of Gertz that refuted Dr. Stewart’s
`
`analysis -- portions that he admitted not reading reading/reviewing in detail (e.g.,
`
`Gertz, § 5.9 “Execution of Applications”; Ex. 1104, pp. 45-48. This is not a “new
`
`argument.” Indeed, ABB’s Petition noted that Onika is:
`
`…capable of creating, simulating, and executing motion control
`
`application programs which are capable of controlling a variety of
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`motion control devices. (’236 Petition at 10-11, citing Gertz, § 1.1; §
`
`1.3) (underline added).
`
`ABB’s petition also noted (underline added):
`
`an application can be created by combining subsystems for execution
`
`in parallel. (’236 Petition at 12, citing Gertz, § 3.2.10).
`
`…
`
`Gertz discloses that the applications built in Onika are constructed
`
`from one or more control subsystems, and that “[a] control subsystem
`
`is a collection of actions which are executed one at a time, and can be
`
`assembled by a user.” (’236 Petition at 22).
`
`…
`
`Onika can then execute the application, thereby translating the logic
`
`contained in the application into commands for controlling a specific
`
`motion control device. (’236 Petition at 24).
`
`…
`
`“The control tasks, which execute in parallel, are combined (using
`
`their icons) to form configurations, which perform some real-time
`
`control function (such as ‘move to x’).” (’236 Petition at 52, quoting
`
`Gertz, § 3.3).
`
`…
`
`Applications comprise component functions (“actions”) defining a
`
`desired motion sequence: “An application is one or more subsystems
`
`executing in parallel towards some common goal.” (Gertz, § 3.2.10).
`
`“A control subsystem is a collection of actions which are executed one
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`at a time, and can be assembled by a user.” (Gertz, § 3.2.9). (’236
`
`Petition at 55).
`
`With specific reference to “component code,” ABB’s Petition noted:
`
`Thus, by describing that the control tasks and configurations (“driver
`
`functions”) are connected to the actions (“component functions”),
`
`Gertz discloses that Onika contains the claimed component code.
`
`(’236 Petition at 23, citing Gertz, § 3.2; § 4).
`
`Strangely, RGB’s response argued that “configuration information” is not
`
`“software code” (Response, 29, citing Stewart Decl. ¶ 44), even though this
`
`is not the BRI of any claim term.
`
`Three other points require clarification. First, the motion to exclude states
`
`that ABB’s reply did not rely on Morrow as teaching primitive operations. RGB’s
`
`response did not dispute that Morrow teaches “trajectory primitives” or
`
`substantively dispute the Board’s finding regarding Morrow, thus it appeared
`
`neither necessary nor appropriate for ABB to address. Second, RGB apparently
`
`confuses a configuration, which is “a set of tasks taken from a from a library
`
`which, when assembled together and activated, will perform a specific job, such as
`
`‘move to x,’” (Gertz, 45) and which ABB asserts is an extended driver function
`
`(’236 Petition at 21) with a type of configuration file, which is one of the various
`
`file formats used by Onika (Gertz, 145; 147-148). Third, the motion to exclude
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`accuses ABB of “switching horses” and citing to the Stewart reference too often.
`
`In essence, RGB suggests that it is entitled to ignore the teaching of the Stewart
`
`reference, even though Gertz and Stewart describe the Onika/Chimera framework.
`
`The central ground for trial, unpatentability over Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow
`
`(along with other references for some claims) remains.
`
`C. Drs. Papanikolopoulos And Voyles Testimony Is Admissible
`
`The Board’s Trial Practice Guide states:
`
`In the event that cross-examination occurs after a party has filed
`
`its last substantive paper on an issue, such cross-examination may
`
`result in testimony that should be called to the Board’s attention, but
`
`the party does not believe a motion to exclude the testimony is
`
`warranted. The Board may authorize the filing of observations to
`
`identify such testimony and responses to observations, as defined
`
`below. (Emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Apparently, RGB “does not believe a motion to exclude the testimony is
`
`warranted,” as RGB filed a motion for observations in this matter. (NB: RGB did
`
`not serve objections to ABB’s Reply in the related IPR2013-00063, and did not
`
`cross-examine Dr. Papanikolopolous in that proceeding). ABB will nevertheless
`
`respond, briefly, to each of RGB’s assertions in turn.
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Drs. Papanikolopolous And Voyles Offer Facts
`In Addition To Opinions Based On The Cited Art
`
`1.
`
`RGB accuses both Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles of relying on their
`
`own knowledge and experience, and on other background materials not cited in
`
`ABB’s original petition. RGB apparently concludes that such knowledge is
`
`“impermissible as a reference.”
`
`Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles testified regarding RGB’s Response,
`
`specifically the testimony of Dr. Stewart. Dr. Stewart’s testimony included factual
`
`assertions based on the alleged operation of Onika/Chimera (see, e.g., ¶¶ 9, 17, 23,
`
`27 and 28), as well as opinions regarding the references and patents (see, e.g., ¶¶
`
`29-32). Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles gave testimony rebutting both
`
`Stewart’s factual assertions (e.g., what a person of skill in computer science and/or
`
`motion control who attended Carnegie Mellon University and worked in the
`
`Advanced Manipulators Lab actually thought of the systems described in the cited
`
`prior art, in the timeframe of the alleged invention by Mr. Brown), and opinions
`
`(e.g., what a person of skill in the art would have thought of the patents and the
`
`cited prior art in the timeframe of the alleged invention), principally with respect to
`
`the issues disputed by Dr. Stewart.
`
`RGB has not presented a proper basis for excluding all factual testimony of
`
`Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles, particularly the fact that Dr. Voyles personally
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`suggested to Dan Morrow using Onika in his research (Ex. 1130, ¶ 36-40) and the
`
`facts regarding Dr. Stewart’s problems in academia. (ABB’s reply to RGB’s
`
`Motion for Observations at section IV; Exhibit 2014 at 58:3-64:22) (Ironically, it
`
`desires to retain testimony that would paint Stewart in a better light).
`
`Further, RGB has presented no reasonable basis to exclude any of the
`
`opinions of Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) provides:
`
`Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight…
`
`The Board’s Trial Practice Guide also states:
`
`Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 705; and § 42.65. Opinions expressed without disclosing the
`
`underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.
`
`Thus the regulations and the Board’s guidance not only contemplate that expert
`
`testimony may rely on background material, but in fact require its disclosure.
`
`
`
`Of course, it is black letter law that the cited art is interpreted through the
`
`knowledge of persons having order skill, who are presumed to have knowledge of
`
`all prior art. Further, background material (even that which is not prior art) may be
`
`relied upon to explain how a reference might be understood, the level of ordinary
`
`skill, etc. (See e.g., MPEP 2143.03).
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles do not map “background material”
`
`against the claims, but, as required, they disclosed background materials they
`
`relied upon in preparing their declarations. See, e.g., Ex. 1132, ¶ 8, disclosing
`
`relevant publications by Dr. Papanikolopoulos illustrating his background
`
`knowledge of the field, ¶ 5, disclosing his familiarity with the Chimera system, and
`
`¶ 34, disclosing relevant publications relied upon by Dr. Papanikolopoulos in his
`
`discussion of the “Background of the State of the Art.” See also, e.g., Ex. 1130, ¶
`
`3, disclosing his familiarity with the Chimera and Onika systems, ¶ 12, disclosing
`
`that Dr. Voyles relied on contemporaneous documents reflecting the state of the art
`
`prior to July 10, 1994, the research being conducted at the AML, and his
`
`experience in the field, ¶¶ 2-3, disclosing the relevance of Dr. Voyles’s own Ph.D.
`
`thesis and that he made extensive use of Chimera and Onika while at the AML,
`
`and ¶¶ 11 and 41, referring to specific materials reviewed. See also, e.g., the C.V.s
`
`of Drs. Papanikolopoulos and Voyles, included in their declarations.
`
`
`
`FRE 702 requires that expert testimony be (1) based on sufficient facts or
`
`data; (2) the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the product of
`
`reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. In this
`
`case, the testimony undoubtedly meets these requirements. Drs. Papanikolopoulos
`
`and Voyles (1) based their testimony on the claim terms and prior art at issue, as
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`well as prior findings of the Board in this proceeding and their own background
`
`knowledge of and experience with the technologies (see, e.g., Ex. 1130, ¶¶ 11, 32;
`
`Ex. 1132, ¶¶ 23-25, 43; and above); (2) assessed the scope of the claim terms at
`
`issue and the scope and content of the prior art, as required by Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (see, e.g., Ex. 1130, ¶¶ 22, 39, and 42-44 and Ex.
`
`1132, ¶¶ 47- 51, 56, 61, and 90-92); and (3) applied the analysis prescribed in
`
`Graham to the underlying facts and information, rendering the various opinions set
`
`forth in their respective declarations.
`
`2.
`
`Expert Testimony
`(Via Declaration) Is Not An “Expert Report”
`
`RGB attempts to treat expert testimony like litigation-based “expert reports,”
`
`asserting that Dr. Papanikolopolous offered “new opinions” on cross. However,
`
`there is no such parallel litigation.
`
`RGB asserts that Stewart’s port-based object is not itself a “function” even
`
`though Dr. Stewart admitted that a PBO includes numerous functions including a
`
`“cycle” function. (Ex. 2011, ¶ 11).
`
`Dr. Papanikolopoulos explained that the cycle function is executable code
`
`that does the “work” associated with the specific by the PBO. (Ex. 2014, 178:21-
`
`179:9). Stewart teaches a variety of specific modules, some of which are
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`cognizable as being primitive (i.e. “zero”), as well as combining them into variety
`
`of more complex tasks (just as Gertz does).
`
`As such, ABB’s experts fairly responded to Dr. Stewart’s asssertions.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Papanikolopolous Applied The Law Correctly
`
`RGB accuses Dr. Papanikolopoulos of “refus[ing] to rely upon accepted
`
`dictionary definitions.” Of course, the Board has not adopted a dictionary
`
`definition for any claim term. Rather, Dr. Papanikolopoulos expressly relied upon
`
`the Board’s construction of terms as he was required to do. Ex. 1132, ¶ 25.
`
`Moreover, RGB cannot reasonably assert that 1997 Microsoft dictionary is
`
`the preeminent source of computer terminology (even though the alleged priority
`
`application dates to 1995). (Ex. 2016; Ex. 2014, 140:11-16; 180:12 – 181:20). For
`
`example, RGB’s witness testified that there were multiple definitions for “code”
`
`and “execution.” See Ex. 1104, 38:6 – 39:8, specifically “To the best of my
`
`knowledge, yes, there are different definitions of code.” See also 72-17: 75:12.
`
`Similarly, Dr. Papanikolopolous acknowledged having both IEEE and ACM
`
`dictionaries in his library (Ex. 2014, 180:5-16):
`
`Q. Mr. Chorush asked you if -- well, when he introduced the
`
`Microsoft dictionary, previously, you'd testified I think there were
`
`something like eighty definitions of code if you looked in various
`
`places; is that correct?
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`A. Of -- of different types of programming.
`
`Q. Different types of programming. Are there other dictionaries in
`
`your office that you use from time to time?
`
`A. There is the ACM. There is the IEEE standard.
`
`Of course, there is no evidence establishing that the Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary 3rd ed. contains only the “accepted dictionary definitions” adopted by
`
`the ACM, IEEE or other professional body. Indeed, well-established rules of
`
`claim construction relegate extrinsic evidence such as dictionary definitions behind
`
`other more relevant sources in determining how the ordinary artisan would have
`
`understood the claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`At best, RGB’s motion is an attack on credibility, not admissibility, and even
`
`then, Dr. Papanikolopolous (like Dr. Voyles) has faithfully relied upon not just the
`
`teaching of cited references, but also the claim construction adopted by the Board
`
`as applied to those references.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`RGB’s motion to exclude is improper. RGB’s did not serve specific
`
`objection to ABB’s Reply, and the instant motion is directed to issues that the
`
`Board has deemed inappropriate, both in its Trial Practice Guide and in specific
`
`opinions construing those rules.
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Where appropriate, ABB’s witnesses gave testimony as to facts, and these
`
`facts refute the testimony of RGB’s witness, Dr. Stewart. Factual testimony is not
`
`subject to a Daubert challenge.
`
`Further, ABB’s witnesses properly relied on various background materials
`
`(i.e. representing and/or confirming the knowledge and understanding of the
`
`ordinary artisan). ABB’s witnesses rendered sound opinions based on the proper
`
`legal standards and the claim construction given by the Board, and refuting Dr.
`
`Stewart’s conclusory testimony (who could give no account for the legal basis he
`
`used, nor explain the glaring inconsistency between the references and his
`
`testimony).
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny RGB’s motion to exclude in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 21, 2014
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Richard D. Mc Leod/
`Richard D. Mc Leod
`Registration No. 46,921
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`ABB’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of ABB’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence was served on counsel of record for
`
`RICHARD S. MEYER
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`5301 WISCONSIN AVENUE NW
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20015
`TEL: (202) 237-2727
`FAX: (202) 237-6131
`RMEYER@BSFLLP.COM
`
`
`the ’236 Patent Owner:
`
`RICHARD T. BLACK
`FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
`1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400
`SEATTLE, WA 98101-3299
`TEL: (206) 447-6251
`FAX: (206) 749-2062
`BLACR@FOSTER.COM
`
`
`DOUGLAS R. WILSON
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
`600 TRAVIS, SUITE 6710
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`TEL: (512) 242-3622
`FAX: (713) 345-2924
`DWILSON@HPCLLP.COM
`
`
`via EXPRESS MAIL, on January 21, 2014.
`
`By /Richard D. Mc Leod/
`Richard D. Mc Leod
`Registration No. 46,921
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
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
