UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Nikon Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Nikon Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONDITIONAL MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ............................................................ 2
`A.
` Mr. Juergens’ Expertise in Past Versions of CODE V Software ................... 2
`
`B. Mr. Juergens’ Optimization of His Calculations for Two Field Points .......... 6
`
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 7
`A. Patent Owner’s Arguments Go to Weight, not Relevance .............................. 7
`
`B. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 Has Limited Relevance to This Proceeding ... 9
`
`C. Mr. Juergens’ Opinion is Probative as to the Relevant State of the Art at the
`Time of Invention .......................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 401 .................................................................................... 8
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ............................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 802 .................................................................................... 2
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 .................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Alra Labs., Inc.,
`Case No. 92-5806, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16611 (N.D. Ill. Oct.
`20, 1997) ............................................................................................................. 13
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Comm. Union v. Boston Edison,
`591 N.E.2d 165 (Mass. 1992) ............................................................................. 13
`
`Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB,
`123 F.2d 214 (8th Cir. 1941) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa.,
`871 F. Supp. 2d 963 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .......................................................... 12, 13
`
`Gnosis S.p.A. v. Merck & CIE,
`IPR2013-00117, Paper No. 71 (PTAB June 20, 2014) ...................................... 11
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Ecodyne Corp.,
`635 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 1981) .............................................................................. 10
`
`Kimberly–Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.,
`241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Schultz v. Butcher,
`24 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Siemens AG v. Seagate Tech.,
`369 F. App'x 118 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 12
`
`United States v. Preston,
`706 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 10
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH (“Zeiss”) now opposes Patent Owner
`
`Nikon’s Conditional Motion to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`(Paper No. 32) in its entirety. Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1036 and 1038-
`
`1049 (“the Challenged Exhibits”), arguing that these have no “probative value and no
`
`relevance to any issues raised by the parties unless Nikon’s Exhibits 2036-2039 are
`
`also included in the record.” (Paper No. 32 at 8) (emphasis added). In other words,
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is based on the convoluted proposition that the
`
`Challenged Exhibits lack probative value unless viewed through the lens of Patent
`
`Owner’s competing exhibits. In this way, Patent Owner’s presentation of this Motion
`
`as “Conditional” belies its merits; the presence of competing Exhibits in the action has
`
`no bearing on whether the Challenged Exhibits are relevant. Rather, each of Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments go to the weight of each Challenged Exhibit, not its relevance. As
`
`recognized by the Board in a recent Order, a Motion to Exclude is an improper forum
`
`for such arguments. Notably, Petitioner’s concurrently-filed Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper No. 35) does not seek exclusion of Exhibits 2036-2039 on the basis of
`
`relevance.1
`
`1 Petitioner seeks to exclude Exhibits 2036-2039 on the bases of 1) lack of
`
`authentication under FRE 901, (2) as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, and 3)
`
`as untimely. (See, e.g., Paper No. 35 at 1).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`II.
`
`A. Mr. Juergens’ Expertise in Past Versions of CODE V Software
`
`
`The Challenged Exhibits include the body of calculations resulting from Mr.
`
`Juergens’ use of version 10.6 of CODE V to modify the lens prescription for the
`
`projection optical system shown in Fig. 5 of the Terasawa prior art (Ex. 1008) to
`
`include an immersion liquid.2 (See, e.g., Ex. 1036 at ¶ 14). In his associated
`
`
`2 Specifically, the simulations found within the Challenged Exhibits show that a
`
`person of skill in the art could have employed CODE V to redesign the projection
`
`optical system shown in Fig. 5 of Terasawa (Ex. 1008) by adding an immersion fluid
`
`between the last lens surface and the wafer to increase depth of focus, and to re-
`
`optimize the aspheric coefficients of the system to obtain an imaging performance
`
`with respect to aberrations as good as, or better than, the original dry design for
`
`Terasawa with respect to the innermost and outermost field points. (Ex. 1036 at ¶¶
`
`15-31, 43-47; see also Ex. 2040, page 102, line 7 to page 103, line 4; page 133, line 2-
`
`22). Moreover, Mr. Juergens similarly showed that one of skill could have further
`
`used CODE V to increase the numerical aperture (“NA”) of the system from NA =
`
`0.6 to NA > 1.0 by varying the thicknesses and curvatures of additional elements, in
`
`addition to re-optimizing the aspheric coefficients, and measuring the performance of
`
`such designs by reducing the aberrations at the inner and outermost field points to
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`supplemental declaration, (Ex. 1036, also the subject of Patent Owner’s Conditional
`
`Motion to Exclude), Mr. Juergens noted:
`
`The version of CODE V that I used is version 10.6. While this version
`was not available in 2003, I was careful to use only those functions and
`features of the program that were available in the 2003 version, which is
`no longer available.
`(Ex. 1036 at ¶17). During cross-examination, Mr. Juergens testified as to his
`
`familiarity and experience with CODE V version 9.2, the version of CODE V
`
`available in 2003. Specifically, Mr. Juergens testified as to his use of this earlier
`
`version in his work as an optical designer at that time. (Ex. 2040 at page 21, line 17 to
`
`page 22, line 2). Further, Mr. Juergens testified as to his employment through 1999
`
`with Optical Research Associates, the company that sold CODE V software. While
`
`employed by that company, Mr. Juergens’ responsibilities included training optical
`
`designers at both Nikon and Zeiss in the use of CODE V. (Ex. 2040 at page 26, lines
`
`3-17). When questioned as to how he could be certain that the functions and features
`
`of CODE V used to generate the calculations comprising the Challenged Exhibits
`
`“were available in the 2003 version of CODE V”, Mr. Juergens testified that he used
`
`only “those features and those techniques that [he] had taught [to Nikon and Zeiss]
`
`back in that time frame.” (Ex. 2040, page 26, lines 12-17).
`
`levels less than those in Terasawa Fig. 5. (Ex. 1036 at ¶¶ 32-42; see also Ex. 2040,
`
`page 113, lines 6-10 and page 132, lines 2-22).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Although Mr. Juergens conceded during cross-examination that CODE V had
`
`undergone improvements between 2003 and 2013 (Ex. 2040, page 50, lines 11-13), he
`
`relied on his expertise in the field in maintaining that these improvements would not
`
`have affected the optimization analysis resulting in the Challenged Exhibits:
`
`A. I can say that with certainty because I’m an expert in CODE V. I
`know what features have been added to it, and I know what was – what
`features were in the program back in the 2003 time frame. Because, as I
`mentioned, I taught . . . lens design for lithographic systems to Nikon,
`among other companies, and I was careful not to use those features.
`Q. Fair enough.
`(Ex. 2040, page 50, line 19 to page 51, line 3).3 Mr. Juergens also conceded that the
`
`
`3 Mr. Juergens testified at length regarding new features introduced into CODE V
`
`software between versions 9.2 and 10.6, and confirmed that none of these new
`
`features were employed in the generation of the Challenged Exhibits. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 2040, page 22, line 25 to page 23, line 9; page 30, line 16 – page 46, line 16;
`
`page 30, line 16 to page 33, line 11 (addressing features in version 9.8); page 33,
`
`line 12 to page 36, line 4 (addressing features in version 10.1); page 36, line 5 to
`
`page 37, line 7 (addressing features in version 10.2); page 37, line 8 to page 40,
`
`line 9 (addressing features in version 10.3); page 40, line 10 to page 41, line 8
`
`(addressing features in version 10.4), page 41, line 9 to page 42, line 22
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`computer he used to generate the Challenged Exhibits necessarily had more
`
`processing power than one he would have had available to perform the same
`
`calculations in 2003, although the ultimate conclusion of the optical design
`
`experiment would not have varied with processing speed. (Ex. 2040, page. 135, line 3
`
`to page 136, line 16).
`
`
`
`Notably, Dr. Jose Sasian, Patent Owner’s expert, testified during his own cross-
`
`examination that one of skill in the art at the time of invention would have known
`
`how to use CODE V software to optimize lens design. Specifically, Dr. Sasian
`
`confirmed that prior to 2003, a person of skill in the relevant art could have used
`
`optical design tools such as CODE V “to evaluate whether immersion fluid could be
`
`added to Terasawa.” (Ex. 1033, page 178, lines 10-25; see also page 180, line 17 to
`
`page 181, line 6; page 182, line 15 to page 183, line 25). Similarly, with respect to
`
`using an immersion fluid to increase depth of focus, Dr. Sasian testified that a person
`
`of skill in 2003 would have known how to correct for the aberrations introduced by
`
`the immersion fluid. (Ex. 1033 at page 120, line 11 to page 121, line 20). Notably,
`
`Patent Owner introduced no competing experiments by Dr. Sasian (or anyone else)
`
`tending to show that the calculations resulting in the Challenged Exhibits would not
`
`have been available at the time of invention. Indeed, Dr. Sasian testified that he did
`
`(addressing features in version 10.5); page 43, line 3 to page 46, line 16
`
`(addressing features in version 10.6).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`not do any such testing, nor was he made aware of any such testing. (Ex. 1033, page
`
`173, line 15 to page 174, line 5).
`
`B. Mr. Juergens’ Optimization of His Calculations for Two Field Points
`
`Patent Owner makes much of the fact that the calculations making up the
`
`
`
`Challenged Exhibits were optimized for “only” two field points:
`
`Mr. Juergens’ own plots only show that his computer-assisted lens
`designs are able to focus two field points of light without
`interference, while completely ignoring all other field points
`within the field width. Because Mr. Juergens plotted only two
`field points of light favorable to Petitioner’s position, his results
`do not represent the effect of the lens design on the entire field
`width.”
`
`(See, e.g., Paper No. 32 at 7). Patent Owner’s characterization of the calculations
`
`found within these Exhibits overlooks Mr. Juergens’ testimony that, given more time,
`
`he could repeat the same steps to optimize for the middle field point, as well as for
`
`additional field points. (Ex. 2040, page 136, line 20 to page 137, line 20). Indeed,
`
`characterizing the lens design with respect to aberration for these three such field
`
`points is exactly how the lens designs disclosed by the ’575 Patent are optimized.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:24-25, 4:28-29; 4:39-46; 4:56-67; 25:36-47; 29:11-18; 37:15-
`
`28; 39:28-40; 49:28-40; 51:58-52:7; 55:1-12; FIGS. 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 19; Ex.
`
`2040 at page 133, line 23 to page 134, line 15). Patent Owner references distortion
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`allegedly present in Mr. Juergens’ lens designs (Paper No. 32 at 7), while failing to
`
`acknowledge the absence of minimum thresholds in Claim 1 of the ’575 Patent (Paper
`
`No. 32, passim). Similarly, Claim 1 fails to set forth any minimum threshold for the
`
`width of the image field or the number of field points necessary to define a claimed
`
`image. Patent Owner cannot dispute that terms such as “image width,” “aberration,”
`
`“distortion,” and “numerical aperture,” are not expressly present in Claim 1, or that
`
`Claim 1 is silent as to “image quality.” This absence of limiting terms is consistent
`
`with Mr. Juergens’ testimony that an image, while “blurry,” can still be an image.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 2040 at page 97, line 16 to page 98, line 1 (“[an image] could have any
`
`amount of wavefront error and still be an image. It can just be a very bad image or a
`
`moderately bad image. It depends upon your quality.”)).
`
`
`III.
`
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) apply to the current proceedings. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Go to Weight, not Relevance
`
`
`
`Patent Owner concedes the wording of FRE 401: “Evidence is relevant if it has
`
`any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
`
`evidence.” FRE 401 also sweeps into its definition of “relevant evidence” facts that
`
`are “of consequence in determining the action.” Each Challenged Exhibit results from
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`an analysis by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Richard C. Juergens, intended to show that one
`
`of skill in the art could have used CODE V software in 2003 to modify the prior art
`
`projection optical system of Terasawa (Ex. 1008) to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`In this way, each Challenged Exhibit falls within the ambit of FRE 401’s broad
`
`definition of “relevance,” as each is of consequence in determining the validity of the
`
`patent in suit, and the enablement of the prior art.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion sets forth several complaints regarding the Challenged
`
`Exhibits, each of which pertains to credibility or weight, and none to relevance:
`
` Mr. Juergens’ design experiments were not performed using the specific
`
`version of Code V software available at the time of invention. (Paper
`
`No. 32 at 3-4).
`
` Mr. Juergens’ calculations represent the effect of the lens design on two
`
`field points of light, and not on the entire field width. (Paper No. 32 at
`
`7).
`
`Although it strenuously contests both arguments on their merits, Petitioner
`
`concedes that both pertain to the relative weight and credibility of the Challenged
`
`Exhibits, and are points that the Board must consider in determining whether Claim 1
`
`is obvious over Terasawa (Ex. 1008). However, neither argument warrants exclusion
`
`of the Challenged Exhibits for reasons of relevance. Moreover, as recognized by the
`
`Board, “issues related to credibility, the weight of the evidence, of the sufficiency of
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`evidence should not be raised in the form of a motion to exclude.” (Paper No. 23 at 3)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner’s presentation of its Motion to Exclude as “Conditional” (Paper
`
`No. 32 at 1) itself illustrates the relevance of the Challenged Exhibits. Patent Owner
`
`states:
`
`If Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2036-2039 remain in the evidentiary record
`for consideration of the merits of this trial, then Patent Owner will
`withdraw this motion because Exhibits 2036-2039 demonstrate that [the
`Challenged Exhibits] support Patent Owner’s contention that the prior
`art does not enable or render obvious the claimed invention.
`
`(Paper No. 32 at 1) (emphasis added). Logic dictates that if the Challenged Exhibits
`
`are probative of obviousness and enablement when compared to Patent Owner’s
`
`competing Exhibits 2036-2039, calculations allegedly based on the Challenged
`
`Exhibits (see Paper No. 32 at 7), then they will retain probative value when viewed
`
`on their own. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner’s Conditional Motion to
`
`Exclude should be denied in its entirety.
`
`B.
`Federal Rule of Evidence 403 Has Limited Relevance to This
`Proceeding
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 403 excludes relevant evidence “if its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” It is well-settled that the protections
`
`afforded by FRE 403 are less critical in a bench trial context, as those presiding over a
`
`jury trial. In United States v. Preston, for example, the Ninth Circuit recently held in
`
`no uncertain terms that “Rule 403 is inapplicable to bench trials.” 706 F.3d 1106,
`
`1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 632 (4th Cir. 1994). The
`
`Schultz court, quoting the Fifth Circuit, noted:
`
`Excluding relevant evidence in a bench trial because it is cumulative or a
`waste of time is clearly a proper exercise of the judge’s power, but
`excluding relevant evidence on the basis of “unfair” prejudice is a
`useless procedure. Rule 403 assumes a trial judge is able to discern and
`weigh the improper inferences, and then balance those improprieties
`against probative value and necessity. Certainly, in a bench trial, the
`same judge can also exclude those improper inferences from his mind in
`reaching a decision.
`24 F.3d at 632 (quoting Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., 635 F.3d 517, 519
`
`(5th Cir. 1981)). Rule 403 is similarly inapposite in this proceeding. The Board has
`
`recognized parallels between
`
`those
`
`tribunals presiding over
`
`inter partes
`
`reexaminations, and litigations decided in the absence of a jury. “Similar to a district
`
`court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative
`
`expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence
`
`presented. . . . Thus, in this inter partes review, the better course is to have a complete
`
`record of the evidence to facilitate public access as well as appellate review.” Gnosis
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`S.p.A. v. Merck & CIE, IPR2013-00117, Paper No. 71 at 44 (PTAB June 20, 2014)
`
`(quoting Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 214, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One
`
`who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally
`
`capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received.”)).
`
`
`
`Here, even if the Challenged Exhibits’ probative value was outweighed by
`
`potential for confusion, prejudice, or wasted time (and Petitioner maintains that it is
`
`not), the Board is well-equipped to weigh all presented information appropriately in
`
`making a determination as to the validity of the claimed invention, and the enablement
`
`of the prior art. For at least this reason, Patent Owner’s argument for exclusion under
`
`FRE 403 should be disregarded.
`
`C. Mr. Juergens’ Opinion is Probative as to the Relevant State of the
`Art at the Time of Invention
`
`Patent Owner discards Mr. Juergens’ accounting of the steps one of skill in the
`
`art in 2003 would have “undertaken to modify the Terasawa reference with the
`
`assistance of the optimization function in Synopsys Inc.’s CODE V software.”
`
`(Paper No. 32 at 3). In doing so, Patent Owner cites assorted cases for the
`
`proposition that “[e]vidence of what a person of ordinary skill in the art knew must
`
`arise at the time of the filing date.” (Paper No. 32 at 3). As discussed infra, Patent
`
`Owner’s cited authority supports, rather than precludes, Petitioner’s reliance on
`
`Mr. Juergens’ opinion of the level of skill in the art in 2003, the time of the
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`purported invention. See Genentech, Inc. v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa., 871 F. Supp.
`
`2d 963, 981 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
`
`F.3d 1336, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`
`Rather, it is well-settled that experts are permitted to opine on the relevant state
`
`of the art at the time of filing. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Kimberly–Clark Corp. v. Johnson &
`
`Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453, 223 USPQ 603, 612–14
`
`(Fed. Cir.
`
`1984) (considering expert testimony regarding the origin and significance of the
`
`hypothetical ordinarily skilled artisan in detail).
`
`Mr. Juergens’ role as an expert is to surmise what was known, what was
`
`available, and what was obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing of
`
`the application for the invention purported in the ’575 Patent. See Siemens AG v.
`
`Seagate Tech., 369 F. App'x 118, 119 (Fed. Cir. 2010). What Mr. Juergens
`
`“knows now” is immaterial to the disputed issues; however, his role as a person
`
`having had ordinary skill in the art in 2003 renders his opinion of what was
`
`available in 2003 highly relevant to Petitioner’s legal position today. See
`
`Genentech, 871 F. Supp. 2d at 981 (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1355-56)).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Mr. Juergens’ use of the 2013 version of CODE V to
`
`show what optimization was available ten years prior was inappropriate, but
`
`neglects that Mr. Juergens made precise, appropriate, and well-thought out
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`modifications to restrict the software’s functionality to that of a version available at
`
`the time of patent application. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion from Abbott
`
`Labs. v. Alra Labs., Inc., Case No. 92-5806, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16611, at *16
`
`(N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 1997), the testing conducted emulates a version that was known
`
`at the time of patent application, and mirrors what was generally used in 2003.
`
` Patent Owner makes a sweeping statement in its Motion to Exclude that “district
`
`courts have declined to admit such ‘evidence,’” citing Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins.
`
`Co. (241 F.R.D. 534 at 560-562 (D. Md. 2007) (Paper No. 32 at 6). However,
`
`Lorraine states that computer simulations are in fact admissible if authenticated by
`
`a witness with personal knowledge that the computer is functioning properly, that
`
`the input and underlying equations are complete and accurate, and that the program
`
`is generally accepted by the appropriate community of scientists. 241 F.R.D. at
`
`560. Importantly, this authentication is properly accomplished through use of an
`
`expert witness. Id. (citing Fed R. Evid. 901(b)(3)); Comm. Union v. Boston Edison,
`
`591 N.E.2d 165, 168 (Mass.1992).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Zeiss respectfully requests that the Board deny the
`
`Patent Owner’s Conditional Motion to Exclude in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Christopher Bowley Reg. No. 55,016/
`Christopher Bowley
`Reg No. 55,016
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`601 Lexington Avenue
`52nd Floor
`New York, NY 10022-4611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on July 14, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Conditional Motion to Exclude Evidence was
`
`provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence email
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`John S. Kern
`Robert C. Mattson
`Oblon Spivak
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`Email: CPdocketKern@oblon.com
`Email: CPdocketMattson@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
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
