`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`Case: IPR2013-00127
`
`Patent: 6,587,067
`
`_________________________
`
`PETITIONER UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”) has moved to exclude
`
`certain answers to deposition questions given by Petitioner Universal Remote
`
`Control’s (“URC”) expert Dr. Alan Herr during redirect examination by URC’s
`
`counsel. UEI’s motion should be denied since (a) the questions posed to Dr. Herr
`
`were not leading because they did not suggest the desired answer, and (b) UEI’s
`
`counsel posed the very same types of questions during redirect examination of its
`
`own expert, Patrick Hayes. In addition, regardless of whether Dr. Herr’s answers
`
`are excluded or not, those answers do not and cannot change the fact of what the
`
`prior art documents themselves show that were the subject of the objected to
`
`questions.
`
`I.
`
`THE OBJECTED TO QUESTIONS WERE NOT LEADING
`
`The definition of a leading question is “a question put or framed in such a
`
`form as to suggest the answer sought to be obtained by the person interrogating” or
`
`one that “puts into a witness’ mouth the words that are to be echoed.” The Law
`
`Dictionary (featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd
`
`Ed.) http://thelawdictionary.org/leading-question/ The questions objected to by
`
`UEI’s counsel were not leading since they did not suggest the answer sought to be
`
`obtained. The three objected to questions are set forth below:
`
`#1: Does that indicate to you that it is also possible in Core to have
`
`preprogrammed remote controller codes?
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`#2: So are those examples of what you were referring in response to
`
`counsel’s questions about directly identifying?
`
`#3: All right. And they are typically one number?
`
`None of these questions gave Dr. Herr an indication as to the desired answer.
`
`For example, Dr. Herr’s answer to Question #2 was “yes,” thereby indicating that
`
`the numbers found on the referenced page were examples of “directly identifying.”
`
`But suppose the desired answer was actually the opposite, namely, that the
`
`numbers were not examples of “directly identifying.” How could the question
`
`have been phrased differently so as to ensure such an answer? A question along
`
`the lines of “The numbers on that page are not examples of ‘directly identifying,’
`
`correct?” would have presumably worked since the question clearly seeks to “put
`
`into a witness’ mouth the words that are to be echoed.” Id. That clearly would
`
`have been an impermissible leading question. However, an open-ended question
`
`such as “Are those examples of …?” does not suggest to the witness whether the
`
`desired answer is “yes” or “no” nor does it attempt to place words into the witness’
`
`mouth. Put another way, a negative response by Dr. Herr to the question was just
`
`as likely as a positive response and therefore, by definition, the question was not
`
`leading. The same is true of the other two questions. Therefore, none of the three
`
`questions were impermissibly leading.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`II. URC’S QUESTIONS TO ITS EXPERT ON REDIRECT WERE NO
`DIFFERENT IN FORM TO THOSE POSED BY UEI TO ITS
`EXPERT ON REDIRECT
`
`
`
`That the questions posed to Dr. Herr were permissible and not leading is
`
`further underscored by the fact that UEI’s counsel posed the very same type of
`
`questions to its own expert, Mr. Hayes, without objection by URC. For example,
`
`Mr. Hayes (a long-time employee of UEI who recently retired from full-time
`
`employment but continues to do consulting for them) purports to be an expert in
`
`the design of universal remote controls1 and submitted a declaration on behalf of
`
`UEI in which he opines about various matters relating to the ‘067 patent and the
`
`prior art. After cross examination of Mr. Hayes by URC’s counsel, UEI’s counsel
`
`posed the following questions on redirect examination:
`
`Q. Mr. Hayes, I’m going to direct your attention to that same passage in
`
`the CORE manual to which Mr. Reynold[s] was referring, specifically the
`
`sentence that says, “When you bought your Core, it actually came with pre-
`
`stored commands from a few remote controllers.” Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Even assuming that those few remote controllers were, let’s say, five
`
`TVs and five VCRs, those prestored commands to which are being referred
`
`there, do those refer to a library of codes and data?
`
`A. No they do not, they’re simply waveform information.
`
`(Ex. 1016 at 87:24-88:13)
`
`
`1 See Hayes deposition transcript, Ex. 1016 at 21:7-10.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`These two questions posed by UEI’s counsel to its expert were of the same
`
`general form as those posed by URC to its expert to which UEI now
`
`disingenuously objects. In both cases counsel first directed the witness to a
`
`passage from a document about which they wished to ask a clarifying question. In
`
`both cases counsel then asked a question about the referenced passage in the
`
`general form of “Does that passage show X?” Here are the actual questions
`
`juxtaposed (with emphasis added) to show the similarity:
`
`URC’s counsel’s question to Dr. Herr:
`
`UEI’s counsel’s question to Mr. Hayes:
`
`“Does that indicate to you that it is also
`
`“Even assuming that those few remote
`
`possible
`
`in
`
`Core
`
`to
`
`have
`
`controllers were, let’s say, five TVs and
`
`preprogrammed
`
`remote
`
`controller
`
`five VCRs, those prestored commands
`
`codes?”
`
`to which are being referred there, do
`
`those refer to a library of codes and
`
`data?”
`
`
`
`In neither case was the answer that counsel desired suggested by the
`
`question itself. In fact, the answer given to URC’s counsel’s question was
`
`basically “yes” while the answer to UEI’s counsel’s question was basically “no.”
`
`In neither case did counsel attempt to put words into the witness’ mouth by posing
`
`the question in a way suggestive of the answer such as “Doesn’t that passage
`
`indicate to you that Core does in fact have preprogrammed remote controller
`
`codes?” or “Those prestored commands being referred to there do not constitute a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`library of codes and data, correct?” Such questions clearly would have been
`
`impermissibly leading.
`
`III. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER DR. HERR’S ANSWERS ARE
`EXCLUDED OR NOT, THE PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS ABOUT
`WHICH HE WAS ASKED SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
`
`
`
`In its motion, UEI claims that during redirect examination Dr. Herr changed
`
`his testimony regarding whether or not the CORE/Wozniak references disclose a
`
`universal remote control that “directly identifies” ID and model number of an
`
`appliance to be controlled. This is a blatant mischaracterization of Dr. Herr’s
`
`testimony. As explained more fully in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper no. 21 at 14-15), Dr. Herr was consistent throughout his
`
`testimony and did not change his answers during redirect examination. Dr. Herr’s
`
`original testimony in response to questions from UEI’s counsel had to do with the
`
`information contained on page 9 (Bates numbered page 10) of the CORE
`
`Reference Manual (Ex. 1005). (See Herr transcript, Ex. 2007 at 82:13-83:12) That
`
`page is entitled “Learning the Infrared (IR) Command” and describes how the
`
`CORE universal remote control can “learn” commands from another remote
`
`control by placing the other remote control head-to-head with the CORE remote
`
`control and then entering certain key sequences. Thus, the referenced page
`
`unequivocally describes one method by which codes are initially entered into the
`
`CORE remote – it has nothing at all to do with how the stored codes are later
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`matched with appliances of different manufacturers. It is this latter step that is the
`
`subject of the claims of the ‘067 patent.
`
`For example, the preamble of claim 1 refers to a universal remote control
`
`comprising, among other things, a library of codes and data. The claim is silent as
`
`to how the library of codes and data is entered into the remote. The “directly
`
`identifying” language that was the subject of UEI’s counsel’s questions to Dr.
`
`Herr, on the other hand, is found in the body of claim 1. That language has
`
`nothing to do with how the library of codes and data is stored, but rather how the
`
`user selects the right codes from the library that match the remote that is to be
`
`emulated. Specifically, the claim requires that the universal remote control first be
`
`matched to one of a plurality of different manufacturers by “directly identifying”
`
`the manufacturer (e.g., by entering “05” for Sony).
`
`
`
`With this background in mind, UEI’s counsel began by asking Dr. Herr if
`
`the CORE Reference Manual discloses “entering the user I.D. and model number
`
`of a target device via push buttons?” (Ex. 2007 at 82:21-23; emphasis added) Dr.
`
`Herr referred to page 9 of the manual (Bates numbered page 10) that describes the
`
`“learning mode” of entering codes into the remote and – based on his review of
`
`that page – concluded that the manual does not disclose entering the manufacturer
`
`codes directly by pushing buttons. (Ex. 2007 at 82:24-83:18) Since Dr. Herr had
`
`only focused on page 9 (Bates numbered page 10) in reaching his conclusion
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`regarding CORE depicting a purely “learning” remote control, on redirect
`
`examination counsel for URC directed Dr. Herr’s attention to Bates numbered
`
`page 9 of the CORE Reference Manual entitled “Storing Your Commands in
`
`CORE.” That section clearly states that the CORE remote control – in addition to
`
`having the capability to learn codes from other remotes – also comes
`
`preprogrammed with codes of various manufacturers (and therefore is not a purely
`
`“learning” remote). URC’s counsel then asked Dr. Herr if that page indicated that
`
`the CORE remote came preprogrammed with codes and Dr. Herr agreed. (Ex.
`
`2007 at 85:1-86:25) That is one of the questions to which UEI now objects
`
`(Question #1).
`
`As set forth above, Dr. Herr’s answer to Question #1 on redirect had nothing
`
`at all to do with the “directly identifying” language asked about by UEI’s counsel.
`
`Instead, Dr. Herr merely clarified that the CORE remote was in fact not a purely
`
`remote control but rather one that also came preprogrammed with manufacturers’
`
`codes. This is a fact. Thus, even if Dr. Herr’s answer was excluded as UEI now
`
`requests, (a) it would not change the fact of what the CORE Reference Manual
`
`discloses (namely, that it came with preprogrammed codes), and (b) would be
`
`irrelevant to the issue of whether the CORE remote is capable of “directly
`
`identifying” various manufacturers as required by the claims of the ‘067 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
` Dr. Herr’s answers to Question #2 and #3 likewise did not in any way
`
`change his prior testimony and, in any event, cannot alter the content of the
`
`underlying document that formed the basis for both questions. Question #2 was
`
`directed to the Magnavox reference (Ex. 1006) and merely inquired as to whether
`
`the manufacturer numbers found on page 2 of the reference were examples of code
`
`numbers that would “directly identify” various manufacturers. (Ex. 2007 at 88:10-
`
`89:6) Again, the Magnavox document speaks for itself even without Dr. Herr’s
`
`testimony. Ultimately, it is the Board that must determine whether the codes
`
`depicted on page 2 of the Magnavox reference directly identify manufacturers or
`
`not. Question #3 was simply a follow-up to Question #2 and asked whether in
`
`general the manufacturer ID codes (as Dr. Herr referred to them) are typically one
`
`number.2 However, whether manufacturer codes are typically expressed as a
`
`single number or multiple numbers is irrelevant since the claims of the ‘067 patent
`
`make no such distinction and are not confined to a specific “form” of number.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Tom Reynolds/
`Date: March 17, 2014 By _____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Dr. Herr’s answer itself is further proof that the question was not impermissible.
`Presumably, if the question was leading then the desired answer would be either
`“Yes, they are typically one number” or “No, they are not typically one number”
`(implying multiple numbers). Instead, Dr. Herr’s response was that they could be
`either one or more numbers. (Ex. 2007 at 89:10-21)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) on counsel
`
`of record for the Patent Owner by email as authorized by the Patent Owner at the
`
`following e-mail addresses:
`
`jarosikg@gtlaw.com; maierse@gtlaw.com; and chiipmail@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Tom Reynolds/
`Date: March 17, 2014 By _____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas C. Reynolds
`Reg. No. 32.488
`
`SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
`P.O. Box 2938
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 373-6912
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`