`
`By: Robert G. Mukai, Esq.
`Charles F. Wieland III, Esq.
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`robert.mukai@bipc.com
`charles.wieland@bipc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`AVAYA INC., DELL INC., SONY CORP. OF AMERICA, and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-000711
`Patent 6,218,930
`Administrative Patent Judges Joni Y. Chang, Justin T. Arbes, and Glenn J. Perry
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`1
`IPR2013-00385 and IPR2013-00495 have been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`
`
`
`In its Opposition, Avaya (1) relies on untimely new evidence that should be
`
`expunged, (2) attempts to divert the Board’s attention from the sole issue raised in
`
`Network-1’s motion (whether the Mercer Report is inadmissible hearsay) based on
`
`flawed arguments, and (3) fails to rebut Network-1’s showing that the Mercer
`
`Report is inadmissible hearsay. Network-1 addresses (1) through (3) in turn.
`
`I.
`
`Avaya’s new evidence is untimely and should be expunged.
`
`In opposing this motion, Avaya attempts to introduce into the record six new
`
`exhibits: AV 1048–1053. This is procedurally improper, and these new exhibits
`
`should be expunged from the record, for two reasons.
`
`First, attempting to introduce new exhibits at this stage of the proceedings
`
`violates 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(2):
`
`Supplemental evidence. The party relying on evidence to which an
`
`objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving
`
`supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(2) (emphasis added). Network-1 timely served its objection
`
`to the Mercer Report on October 29, 2013. Accordingly, if Avaya intended to rely
`
`on any supplemental evidence (AV 1048–1053) to respond to Network-1’s
`
`objection, it was required to serve such evidence by November 5, 2013. It did not.
`
`Second, attempting to introduce these new exhibits just a few weeks before
`
`oral argument violates the Scheduling Order. The due date for Motions to Exclude
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`was December 11, 2013. Paper 69. Avaya’s untimely evidence prevents
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`Network-1 from objecting to and bringing a Motion to Exclude such evidence.
`
`Accordingly, these exhibits should be expunged from the record.
`
`II. Avaya’s attempt to divert the Board’s attention from the sole issue in
`this motion is irrelevant and flawed.
`
`Most of Avaya’s brief attempts to divert the Board’s attention from the issue
`
`presented in Network-1’s motion – whether the Mercer Report is admissible. The
`
`issue is not whether Network-1 complied with its disclosure obligations. If this
`
`issue were properly briefed, Network-1 would demonstrate that it has. Moreover
`
`there are two critical flaws with Avaya’s diversion:
`
`Flaw 1: Avaya argues that the entire 145 page Mercer Report should be
`
`introduced as evidence solely based on footnote 287 of the report. If the footnote
`
`were admissible, that would not make the entire 145-page report admissible.
`
`Flaw 2: The Deptula transcript does not include any “relevant information
`
`that is inconsistent with a position advanced” by Network-1. 37 CFR
`
`§42.51(b)(1)(iii). The quoted footnote (287) makes two points: Deptula is not
`
`aware (1) that he or Merlot received recognition or praise for the ‘930 Patent, and
`
`(2) of anyone who expressed surprise for the ideas in the ‘930 Patent. Opp. 4.
`
`These points, which are at best marginally relevant, are not inconsistent with any
`
`positions advanced by Network-1. Network-1 never asserted that (a) Deptula or
`
`Merlot received recognition or praise for the ‘930 Patent, or (b) Deptula was aware
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`of anyone who expressed surprised for the ideas expressed in the ‘930 Patent.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`III. The Mercer Report is inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`In its Motion, Network-1 demonstrated that the Mercer report is (a)
`
`inadmissible hearsay under Rules 801 and 802, and (b) inadmissible hearsay within
`
`hearsay under Rule 805. Avaya makes two arguments in response. Both fail.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Mercer Report is not admissible under Rule 807.
`
`Avaya contends that the Mercer Report is admissible under Rule 807. This
`
`contention fails from the outset because the Report cannot even satisfy the first
`
`requirement of admissibility under Rule 807: that “the statement has equivalent
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 807 (emphasis added).
`
`Avaya makes two arguments in its attempt to support this requirement:
`
`
`
`(1) that the report was “lodged in a case against Patent Owner.” Opp. 6.
`
`This argument does not make sense. Every time a court excludes a document as
`
`hearsay, that document was filed or lodged in a case. Lodging or filing a document
`
`with a court does not transform hearsay into non-hearsay. Moreover, case law
`
`confirms that lodged or filed expert reports are excluded as hearsay. See Kuryakyn
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. Just in Time Distrib. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160940, *9 n.3
`
`(W.D. Wis., Nov. 12, 2013) (“The court will not admit either side’s expert reports
`
`because they constitute hearsay.”); Redondo Constr., Co. v. Izquierdo, 929 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 14, 19 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Expert reports are inadmissible hearsay.”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`(2) that the cited footnote is “sworn deposition testimony.” Id. This
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`
`
`
`argument fails for two reasons. First, this argument only relates to a single
`
`footnote (287) from the entire 145-page report. That one footnote includes sworn
`
`deposition testimony cannot serve as a guarantee of trustworthiness for the other
`
`145 pages. Second, deposition transcripts are excluded as inadmissible hearsay,
`
`especially those from another proceeding. Avaya does not cite any authority for its
`
`argument – because the authority is directly to the contrary. See Planet Goalie,
`
`Inc. v. Monkeysports, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57499,14 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22,
`
`2013) (holding that “deposition testimony [of a non-party] is hearsay” and
`
`therefore not “admissible evidence”); Marshak v. Treadwell, 58 F. Supp. 2d 551,
`
`570 (D.N.J. 1999) (“Charlie Thomas was neither a party nor a witness in the
`
`instant litigation and his deposition transcript from a prior lawsuit was therefore
`
`objectionable, on its face, as hearsay.”).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Deptula quote is not an admission of a party opponent.
`
`Avaya attempts to overcome the second layer of hearsay with a flawed
`
`contention that “the Deptula Transcript constitutes non-hearsay as an admission by
`
`a party opponent.” Opp. 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C)-(D)).
`
`First, to be non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(C), the statement must be
`
`“made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C). Avaya’s speculation that Deptula was “likely …
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`authorized” is insufficient as a matter of law and factually incorrect. Deptula was
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`testifying as a third party witness. He was not authorized by Network-1 to make a
`
`statement on this subject, or on any other subject.
`
`Second, to be non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), the statement must be
`
`“made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that
`
`relationship and while it existed.” Deptula was not an employee of Network-1 at
`
`the time of his testimony, or at any other time. Nor was he offering testimony as
`
`an agent of Network-1. Again, Avaya’s unsupported speculation to the contrary
`
`cannot save its argument.
`
`
`
`Avaya contends that, even if the report is excluded, the “[u]nderlying
`
`opinion of Avaya’s expert, Dr. George Zimmerman is still admissible” because he
`
`could reasonably rely on the Deptula testimony under Rule 703. Opp. 8. This
`
`argument is misplaced because Dr. Zimmerman has not relied on any Deptula
`
`testimony (let alone the cited testimony). See AV-1011 (Zimmerman Decl.) and
`
`AV-1041 (2nd Zimmerman Decl.) (neither reference any Deptula testimony).
`
`IV. Conclusion.
`
`Exhibit AV-1042 (the Mercer Report) should be excluded as evidence from
`
`this proceeding and Avaya’s new exhibits (AV-1048 – AV-1053) should be
`
`expunged.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 30, 2013
`
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Telephone (703) 836-6620
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`
`/Charles F. Wieland/
`By:
`Charles F. Wieland III
`Registration No. 33,096
`Counsel for NETWORK-1 SECURITY
` SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PATENT
`OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) is being served via electronic
`mail (with Petitioner’s Consent) upon the following this 30th day of December
`2013, via electronic mail, as follows:
`
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok and Jonathan Lindsay
`AV1-PRPS@Crowell.com
`JSanok@Crowell.com
`JLindsay@Crowell.com
`Counsel for Avaya Inc.
`
`Michael J. Scheer and Thomas M. Dunham
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`mscheer@winston.com
`tdunham@winston.com
`Counsel for Dell, Inc.
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue and Erika Arner
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Counsel for Sony Corp. of America
`
`Robert J. Walters and Charles J. Hawkins
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`rwalters@mwe.com
`chawkins@mwe.com
`Counsel for Hewlett-Packard Co.
`
`Date: December 30, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Charles F. Wieland III/
`Charles F. Wieland III
`Registration No. 33,096
`Counsel for NETWORK-1 SECURITY
` SOLUTIONS, INC.
`
`