Direct Phone
`
`(206) 447-6251
`
`Direct Facsimile
`E-Mail
`
`(206) 749-2062
`blacn’tfloslencom
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
`
`Richard D. McLeod
`
`Michael D, Jones
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center. Suite 1600
`
`I21 S.W. Salmon Street
`
`Portland, OR 97204
`Rickmcleodajtklarguist.com
`Wehaeljonesfiklarq uistcom
`
`Re:
`
`ABB, Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corporation
`lPR2013-00062
`IPR2013-00074
`
`MI. McLeod:
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.64(b)(l), Patent Owner Roy-G-Biv Corporation serves its
`objections to Petitioner ABB’s Reply to Patent Owner Response,
`including the following
`exhibits thereto, filed in each of the above-identified matters.
`
`including the
`Patent Owner objects to the entirety of each of Petitioner’s Replies,
`attached declarations, to the extent they rely upon newly-disclosed alleged prior art and new
`theories that should have been raised in the Petition RGB’s understanding is that the Board does
`not wish to engage in separating appropriate rcply evidence from inappropriate reply evidence
`material. See Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Technologies Inc, LPR2013-00057, Paper 29 (stating “that
`a trial within a trial will not be held, complete with respective briefings, on whether [Petitioner‘s]
`Reply is improper for including information it should have submitted in its Petition”)
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the following particular Reply exhibits on the following
`additional particular grounds:
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`
`EXHIBIT 2015
`
`ABB V ROY-G-BIV
`
`TRIAL |PR2013-00062
`
`Sl33252l 5
`
`
`
`(206) 447-6251
`
`Direct Facsimile
`
`(206) 749-2062
`blacn’tfloslencom
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
`
`Richard D. McLeod
`
`Michael D, Jones
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center. Suite 1600
`
`I21 S.W. Salmon Street
`
`Portland, OR 97204
`Rickmcleodajtklarguist.com
`Wehaeljonesfiklarq uistcom
`
`Re:
`
`ABB, Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corporation
`lPR2013-00062
`IPR2013-00074
`
`MI. McLeod:
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.64(b)(l), Patent Owner Roy-G-Biv Corporation serves its
`objections to Petitioner ABB’s Reply to Patent Owner Response,
`including the following
`exhibits thereto, filed in each of the above-identified matters.
`
`including the
`Patent Owner objects to the entirety of each of Petitioner’s Replies,
`attached declarations, to the extent they rely upon newly-disclosed alleged prior art and new
`theories that should have been raised in the Petition RGB’s understanding is that the Board does
`not wish to engage in separating appropriate rcply evidence from inappropriate reply evidence
`material. See Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Technologies Inc, LPR2013-00057, Paper 29 (stating “that
`a trial within a trial will not be held, complete with respective briefings, on whether [Petitioner‘s]
`Reply is improper for including information it should have submitted in its Petition”)
`
`Patent Owner also objects to the following particular Reply exhibits on the following
`additional particular grounds:
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`
`EXHIBIT 2015
`
`ABB V ROY-G-BIV
`
`TRIAL |PR2013-00062
`
`Sl33252l 5
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`Page 2
`
`,,
`
`Emmifl
`
`
`,,
`r
`_
`
`_,
`
`Exhibit Identity
`
`Objection
`
`Ex.
`No.
`
`1100
`
`Gertz, Matt, Chimera 3.2 FAQ,
`October 14, 1994-
`
`
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`. PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONEUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`1101
`
`Stewart, David B., The Chimera
`Me’h0d0103V Des’gm’“?
`Dynamically Reconfigurable Real-
`Time Software using Port-Based
`Objects, October 1994_
`
`UNTIMELY
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`Stewart, David B., CHIMERA 11:A UNTIMELY
`RealiTime UNM'Comga’ib’e
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`Multlprocessor Operanng System
`PETITION
`for Sensor-based Control
`Applications, September 1989.
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED J
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`I
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`1
`‘
`
`Stewart, David B., Chimera 3.2,
`The Real-Time Operating System
`for Reconfigurable Sensor-Based
`Control Systems, February 8, 1995.
`
`UNTIMELY
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`1102
`
`1 103
`
`513325215
`
`
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`Page 3
`
`
`
` Exhibit Identity
`
`
`Objection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNTIMELY
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 5-
`
`
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`15-1995 to 5-19-1995
`
`POSITIONS
`
`
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLBADING, UNDUE
`
`
`DELAY)
`
`
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`UNTIMELY
`Brown, Weekly Status Report. 5-
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`08-l 995 to 5-12-1995
`POSITIONS
`
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`
` [Protective Order Material] David
`UNTIMELY
`
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 4-
`24-1995 to 4-28-1995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITII RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, M'ISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`l
`
`
`
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 4-
`17-1995 to 4-21-1995
`
`
`
`1114
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown» Weekly Status REP“: 4‘
`10-1995 to 4-14-1995
`
`UNTIMELY
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`POSITIONS
`'
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION.
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`
`5l332521.5
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`Page 4
`
`EX.
`
`Exhibit Identity
`
`Objection
`
`
`
`1115
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 11-
`21-1994 to 11-25-1994
`
`UNTIL/[ELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`
`1116
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 3-
`20-1995 to 3-24-1995
`
`1 120
`
`[Protective Order Material] RGB
`Officer Meeting, June 27, 1995
`
`
`
`1122
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 3-
`06-1995 to 3—10-1995
`
`
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREIUDICE, CONFUSIQN,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`.
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITII RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`
`
`1 123
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 2-
`26-1995 to 3-03-1995
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PIUEJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`511325215
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Exhibit Identity
`
`Objection
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WIT‘H RGB
`
`POSITIONS
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`POSITIONS
`
`FREE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT lNS'l‘ITU'l‘E IPR BASED
`
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY,)
`
`Ex.
`No.
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 2-
`20-1995 to 2—25—1995
`
`
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 2-
`06-1995 to 2-10-1995
`
`1126
`
`[Protective Order Material] David
`Brown, Weekly Status Report, 1-
`16-1995 to 1-20-1995
`
`1 131
`
`Morrow, James Daniel,
`Sensorimotor Skillsfor
`Programming Robotic Assembly
`Skills, Ph. D. Thesis, May 1997.
`
`SI33252LS
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Exhibit Identity
`
`Objection
`
`Ingimarson, D.; Stewart, D.; and
`Khosla, P., Chimera 3.2: The Real-
`time Operating System for
`Reconfigurable Sensor-Based
`Control Systems, Program
`Documentation. Carnegie Mellon
`University, February 1995
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`Stewart, D.; and Khosla, P., The
`Chimera Methodology: Designing
`Dynamically Reconfigurable Real-
`time Software Using Port-Based
`Objects, Proceedings of the First
`Workshop on Object-Oriented
`Real-time Dependable Systems
`(WORDS 1994), October 1994,
`Dana Point, CA
`
`Morrison, J.P., Data Responsive
`Modular. Interleaved Task
`
`Programming System, IBM
`Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol_
`
`13, No. 8, pp. 2425- 2426, January
`1971
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE or TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
` UNTIMELY
`
`
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`Ramamritham, IL; Stemple. D.;
`Briggs, D.; and Vinter, S.,
`Privilege Transfer and Revocation
`in a Port-Based System, IEEE
`Transactions on Software
`
`Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.
`635-648, 1986
`
`UNTIMELY
`
`NOT ASSERTED AS PRIOR ART IN
`
`PETITION
`
`BOARD DID NOT INSTITUTE IPR BASED
`UPON THIS DOCUMENT
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, MISLEADING, UNDUE
`DELAY)
`
`smzszrs
`
`
`
`November 1, 2013
`
`Page 7
`
`Exhibit Identity
`
`Plaintiff RGB‘s Second
`
`
`
`Ex.
`1 No.
`
`1137
`
`i ‘
`
`Supplemental Answers and
`Objections to Defendant’s First Set
`of Interrogatories, Ray-G-Biv
`Corp, v. Fanuc Ltd, er a1. (CASE
`NO. 2:07-CV-O418-DF-CE)
`
`
`
`
`DELAY)
`
`
`POSITIONS
`
`RELEVANCE;
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`Objection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`WASTE OF TIME, M'ISLEADI‘NG, UNDUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RELEVANCE;
`
`NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RGB
`
`(Redacted) Expert Disclosure Of
`David W. Brown Regarding
`Alleged Indefiniteness, (E.D.
`
`Tex.,) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-
`‘
`FRE RULE 403 (PREJUDICE, CONFUSION,
`
`00622-LED)
`
`WASTE OF TIME, MJSLEADING, UNDUE
`
`DELAY)
`
`
`POSITIONS
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/
`
`Richard T. Black
`
`R'l‘B/sl
`
`Cc: Richard S. Meyer
`
`Sl11252l 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Correspondence
`
`Noting objections to exhibits to ABB’s Reply was served on PETITIONER by
`
`placing a copy into US. EXPRESS MAIL directed to the attorneys of record for
`
`the petitioner at the following address:
`
`Richard D. Mc Leod
`
`Michael D. Jones
`
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 SW. Salmon Street
`
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 SW. Salmon Street
`
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`
`Dated: November 30, 2013
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/
`
`RICHARD T. BLACK
`
`Foster Pepper PLLC
`1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
`
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3299
`Tel: (206) 447—6251
`Fax: (206) 749—2062
`Email:
`blacr@foster.com
`Registration No.: 40514
`
`/Joel B. Ard/
`
`JOEL B. ARD
`
`Foster Pepper PLLC
`1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
`
`Seattle, Washington 98101—3299
`Tel:
`(206) 447—6252
`Fax: (206) 749—2062
`Email: ardjo@foster.com
`Registration No.: 67041
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner,
`Roy—G-Biv Corporation
`
`513326701
`
`
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
