`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`LINKEDIN CORP.,
`and
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`U. S. Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDEXING, SEARCHING
`AND DISPLAYING DATA
`
`_______________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2013-00479
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`871741.01
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER .......... 2
`II.
`III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE
`MERITS .......................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Patent Owner Fails to Carry Its Burden of Proof ................................. 4
`B. Dr. Fox Properly Responded to the Claim Interpretations of
`Patent Owner and its Expert ................................................................. 5
`C. Dr. Fox Properly Responded to Dr. Jacobs On the Tapper
`Papers ................................................................................................... 7
`D. Dr. Fox Properly Cites Dr. Jacobs’ Book to Rebut Dr. Jacobs’
`Opinions ............................................................................................. 12
`Patent Owner Was Free to Depose Dr. Fox, But Chose Not To ........ 13
`E.
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST
`FOR A “SUR-REPLY.” ............................................................................... 14
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets,
`IPR2013-00047 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00007, IPR2013-000256 ..............................................................passim
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00002 (“Liberty Mutual I”) .......................................................passim
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (“Liberty Mutual II”) ........................................................... 3, 5
`
`Vibrant Media v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00172 ............................................................................................passim
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.12 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ............................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ........................................................................................ 3, 4, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 .......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`871741.01
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`
`The “Motion to Exclude Evidence” filed by the patent owner (Paper 44
`
`(“Motion”)) is procedurally improper and should be rejected. The Board recently
`
`advised the patent owner that a motion to exclude is an inappropriate vehicle to
`
`argue that material submitted by a petitioner in a reply is allegedly “new.”1 The
`
`patent owner, ignoring the Board’s guidance, brought the present motion anyway.
`
`
`
`The patent owner’s motion, even if it was procedurally proper, fails because
`
`the evidence it seeks to exclude falls within the permissible scope of a reply. The
`
`challenged evidence responds to arguments and opinions raised in the patent
`
`owners’ Response and the extensive accompanying expert declaration from the
`
`patent owner’s expert, Dr. Jacobs.
`
`
`
`The patent owner fixates on the length of the Petitioner’s reply papers, but
`
`ignores that those papers responded to hundreds of pages of arguments and more
`
`than 1,100 pages of evidence from Dr. Jacobs (including over 700 pages of
`
`declaration evidence and over 400 pages of deposition testimony).2 The patent
`
`
`1 See IPR2013-00481, Paper 41, at 2 n.1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014).
`
`2 See IPR2013-00478, Exs. 2113, 1032, 1033; IPR2013-00479, Exs. 2113, 1234,
`
`1235; IPR2013-00480, Exs. 2113, 1029, 1030; IPR2013-00481, Exs. 2113, 1034,
`
`1035. The Board has coordinated the proceedings in Inter Partes Review numbers
`
`IPR2013-00478, -479, -480, and -481.
`
`871741.01
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`owner’s complaint about the length of Dr. Fox’s reply declaration also ignores the
`
`fact that it consolidates all of his rebuttal testimony for all four of the related IPR
`
`proceedings. Only a portion of Dr. Fox’s consolidated reply declaration
`
`specifically relates to the present case, and only a smaller portion still is challenged
`
`in the present Motion.
`
`For these reasons, and as discussed more fully below, the patent owner’s
`
`Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER.
`
`The patent owner’s Motion argues that the challenged evidence should be
`
`excluded because it allegedly raises “new” arguments and/or arguments that could
`
`have been presented with Petitioners’ original Petitions. (Motion, passim.) The
`
`Board has repeatedly explained that a complaint about allegedly “new” material on
`
`reply is not a proper basis for a motion to exclude evidence. Vibrant Media v. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 (Final Written Decision), at 41-42 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Jul. 28, 2014); Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00007, IPR2013-000256,
`
`Paper 51 (Final Written Decision), at 34 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014); Liberty Mutual
`
`Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 (Final Written
`
`Decision), at 62 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) (“Liberty Mutual I”); Liberty Mutual Ins.
`
`Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 78 (Final Written
`
`Decision), at 68-69 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) (“Liberty Mutual II”); Corning Inc. v.
`
`DSM IP Assets, IPR2013-00047, Paper 84 (Final Written Decision), at 7 n.3
`2
`
`871741.01
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 1, 2014). A motion to exclude evidence should be directed to the
`
`admissibility of evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence or other law
`
`governing the admissibility of evidence, and not issues relating to the timing of
`
`that evidence. Vibrant Media, IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 at 41, citing 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(c) and Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767.3
`
`
`
`The Board in related case IPR2013-00481 accordingly cautioned the patent
`
`owner prior to filing of the present Motion that “[a] motion to exclude seeking to
`
`strike a reply for violating 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) . . . would be improper.”
`
`IPR2013-00481, Paper 41, at 2 n.1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014).4 Ignoring the
`
`
`3 The patent owner also requests that if the Board excludes any paragraphs in Dr.
`
`Fox’s reply declaration in this case, the Board should also “exclude the identical
`
`paragraphs in the reply declarations submitted in” other Inter Partes Review cases.
`
`(Motion at 14.) While there is no basis to exclude any of the evidence challenged
`
`in the Motion, Petitioners note that this request is plainly improper. The patent
`
`owner cites no rule authorizing the exclusion of evidence submitted in other Inter
`
`Partes Review cases based on a motion filed only in the present case.
`
`4 Prior to Patent Owner’s Motion, Petitioners also sent correspondence specifically
`
`advising Patent Owner that its planned motion was improper under the applicable
`
`authority and that Petitioners reserved the right to seek any relief that the Board
`
`might deem appropriate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.
`
`871741.01
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`Board’s guidance, the patent owner has brought precisely the motion that the
`
`Board cautioned the patent owner to avoid. (Motion at 2.) The Board should deny
`
`the Motion in its entirety.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE MERITS.
`A.
`Patent Owner Fails to Carry Its Burden of Proof.
`The patent owner has also failed to carry its burden to exclude evidence. See
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) (the moving party bears the burden of proof). The Petitioners
`
`were entitled to submit evidence with their Reply that responds to the arguments
`
`and evidence presented in patent owner’s Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`Vibrant Media, IPR2013-00172, Paper 50, at 41. “[B]y standard procedure, the
`
`Petitioner has the last word with regard to the petition and it would not be unusual
`
`that one or more reply declarations may be necessitated by the arguments and
`
`evidence presented with the Patent Owner Response.” Liberty Mutual I,
`
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 38 at 2.
`
`
`
`The patent owner does not attempt to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that
`
`the challenged evidence is not responsive to arguments and opinions raised in the
`
`patent owner’s Response. Vibrant Media, IPR2013-00172, Paper 50, at 41. In
`
`fact, the Motion ignores the hundreds of pages of arguments and opinions raised by
`
`the patent owner’s expert, Dr. Jacobs, to which Petitioners and Dr. Fox properly
`
`responded. Just like the moving parties in Vibrant Media and Liberty Mutual II,
`
`the patent owner’s motion “does not contain any meaningful discussion of the
`4
`
`871741.01
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`arguments that [the patent owner] has made in its Patent Owner Response, which
`
`reasonably might or might not have triggered [Petitioners’] reliance on the
`
`testimony [the patent owner] now seeks to exclude.” Vibrant Media, at 41-42,
`
`citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). “Without such discussion, [the patent owner] has not
`
`shown that [Dr. Fox’s reply declaration] exceeds the proper scope of reply
`
`evidence.” Id. at 42. See also Liberty Mutual II, CBM2012-00003, Paper 78 at
`
`67-68 (same reasoning). The patent owner’s Motion should be denied accordingly.
`
`
`
`Although the Motion did not attempt to carry its burden of showing that
`
`Petitioner’s reply evidence exceeded the proper scope, the Petitioners will
`
`nonetheless address below the challenged items of evidence and explain they
`
`properly fell within the scope of reply evidence.
`
`B. Dr. Fox Properly Responded to the Claim Interpretations of
`Patent Owner and its Expert.
`
`
`
`The patent owner erroneously argues that it is “unduly prejudiced” because
`
`Dr. Fox allegedly raised a new construction of the term “database.” (Motion at 4-
`
`5.) This complaint is groundless because Dr. Fox’s statements about “database”
`
`were made in direct response to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions. (Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 11-17, 200,
`
`330-333 (citing and then responding to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions).) Dr. Fox noted, for
`
`example, that Dr. Jacobs’ opinions assumed an erroneously narrow definition of
`
`“database” that contradicts the express definition in the specifications, which
`
`871741.01
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`broadly define “database” as “any device which will hold data.” (’352 col. 9:45-
`
`50; ’494 col. 10:18-23; see also Ex. 1233, ¶ 15.)
`
`
`
`The patent owner’s claim of “prejudice” is also fatally undermined by the
`
`fact that the patent owner had clear notice of this issue long before it filed its
`
`Response. During Dr. Fox’s deposition that took place several weeks prior to the
`
`filing of Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. Fox repeatedly pointed to the portion of the
`
`specification discussing “database” and discussed the meaning of that term in
`
`response to multiple questions by the patent owner’s counsel. (Exs. 2016-2017,
`
`Fox Tr. (April 26-27, 2014) at 251:9-252:12, 210:24-213:8, 219:2-21, 224:9-14,
`
`226:3-9, 301:22-303:6.)
`
`
`
`The patent owner also complains about Paragraph 202 of Dr. Fox’s reply
`
`declaration, but that paragraph again merely responds to arguments made by Dr.
`
`Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs opined that claim 18 is valid over the prior art because the prior
`
`art allegedly fails to disclose creating a first numerical representation. (Ex. 1233, ¶
`
`202 (citing Jacobs ¶ 225).) Dr. Fox responded that “there is no step recited in
`
`claim 18 regarding the creation of the first numerical representation.” (Id.) Thus,
`
`Dr. Fox correctly observed that “Dr. Jacobs’ opinion is directed to an unclaimed
`
`871741.01
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`limitation.” (Id.)5 He did not “provid[e] a claim interpretation for claim 18,” as
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`the patent owner alleges in its Motion; he merely noted that Dr. Jacobs relied on a
`
`limitation that this claim does not recite. (Motion at 4; Ex. 1233, ¶ 202.) And in
`
`any event, Dr. Fox was responding to Dr. Jacobs. Dr. Fox’s response was clearly
`
`permissible reply evidence.
`
`C. Dr. Fox Properly Responded to Dr. Jacobs On the Tapper Papers.
`The patent owner next complains that although Dr. Fox did not opine on the
`
`
`
`Tapper Papers in his original declaration, his reply declaration responds to Dr.
`
`Jacobs’ opinions on those papers. (Motion at 5-10.) This complaint is similarly
`
`baseless. Petitioners are entitled to respond to Dr. Jacobs’ testimony on how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Tapper papers (see Ex.
`
`1233, ¶¶ 100-186, 241-267), and to submit expert testimony in support of their
`
`response.6 Dr. Jacobs’ testimony about the Tapper Papers did not exist at the time
`
`Petitioners filed their original Petition.
`
`
`5 Dr. Jacobs’ misdirected opinion might have resulted from the patent owner
`
`copying and pasting arguments from its Response papers in the ’352 patent case
`
`into its Response papers in this ’494 patent case. (See Paper 40 at 3.)
`
`6 The patent owner’s Motion cites only to paragraphs 103-186 and 241-267 of Dr.
`
`Fox’s reply declaration, conspicuously omitting paragraph 102, where Dr. Fox
`
`871741.01
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`The patent owner’s argument is based on the mistaken assumption that Dr.
`
`
`
`Fox may not opine on the Tapper Papers unless he discussed them in his original
`
`declaration. (Motion at 8.) The Board has made clear, however, that “the standard
`
`for determining whether a Reply is appropriate is not whether an argument
`
`contained therein or evidence submitted therewith ‘could have been’ submitted in
`
`the original petition.” Liberty Mutual I, CBM2012-00002, Paper 38, at 2 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Sept. 3, 2013) (emphasis added). It is therefore irrelevant that Dr. Fox did not
`
`opine on the Tapper Papers with the original Petition. Id. (“the mere fact that
`
`Petitioner did not rely on declarations of Ms. O’Neal and Mr. Andrews in the
`
`initial petition does not mean automatically that Petitioner may not rely on
`
`testimony of those declarants to support its Reply”).
`
`
`
`The patent owner also contends that it “has not had the opportunity to brief
`
`any portion of this new testimony.” (Motion at 6.) That is both incorrect and
`
`irrelevant. The patent owner had “the right to cross-examine Petitioner’s reply
`
`declarant[] and then, in appropriate circumstance, request authorization to file a
`
`motion for observation on cross-examination.” Liberty Mutual I, CBM2012-
`
`00002, Paper 38 at 2-3. The patent owner chose not to cross-examine Dr. Fox after
`
`
`specifically identifies and cites Dr. Jacobs’ opinions to which Dr. Fox is
`
`responding. See Ex. 1233, ¶ 102.
`
`871741.01
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`the submission of the Petitioners’ reply. The patent owner therefore voluntarily
`
`waived its right to submit written observations about Dr. Fox’s reply evidence.
`
`
`
`In any event, for each item of evidence challenged in the Motion, the record
`
`confirms that it falls within the scope of proper reply evidence. As in Liberty
`
`Mutual I, “each section” of Dr. Fox’s reply declaration regarding the Tapper
`
`Papers “first directs our attention to the testimony of [Patent Owner]’s expert . . .
`
`and then presents [his] rebuttal testimony.” Liberty Mutual I, CBM2012-00002,
`
`Paper 66 at 68-69.
`
`
`
`For example, Dr. Jacobs opined that the Tapper Papers do not disclose
`
`creating a “numerical representation” of objects in a “database,” based on his
`
`interpretations of those terms and of the Tapper Papers, and further opined that the
`
`Tapper Papers do not disclose or suggest the use of full-text retrieval databases.
`
`Dr. Fox’s reply declaration responds to those interpretations and arguments,
`
`including discussion of relevant portions of the Tapper Papers. (Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 100-
`
`186, 241-267.) Such responsive testimony is entirely appropriate on reply. Liberty
`
`Mutual I, CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 68-69; Vibrant Media, IPR2013-00172,
`
`Paper 50 at 42-43; Kyocera, IPR2013-00007, IPR2013-000256, Paper 51, at 34-35.
`
`
`
`The patent owner also complains about testimony regarding “combining the
`
`Tapper Papers” (Motion at 8-9), but does not identify the testimony it objects to.
`
`Petitioners do not rely on Dr. Fox’s reply testimony for a prima facie case
`
`871741.01
`
`9
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`regarding the Tapper Papers. In any event, the patent owner does not dispute that
`
`it would have been obvious to combine the relevant teachings of the Tapper
`
`Papers. (See Paper 1 (Petition) at 36-37 (“To the extent either Tapper paper were
`
`deemed not to disclose a claim limitation, it was obvious to combine them”); Paper
`
`18 (Inst. Dec.) at 19 (discussing obviousness to combine); Paper 31 (PO Resp.) at
`
`34-44 (Patent Owner does not dispute combinability).)
`
`
`
`The patent owner also complains about Dr. Fox’s opinions on “creating a
`
`first numerical representation” in paragraphs 107-122 of his reply declaration.
`
`(Motion at 9.) But paragraphs 107-122 directly respond to Dr. Jacobs’ testimony.
`
`(Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 107-122 (quoting and then responding to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions).) The
`
`patent owner objects that paragraph 109 “provides an illustration of Table 2 of
`
`Tapper 1982” (Motion at 9), but neglects to mention that it responds directly to Dr.
`
`Jacobs’ testimony about that same table. (Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 108-109.)7 “[I]t would be
`
`unreasonable to prohibit rebuttal testimony from referring to the same figures or
`
`
`7 Dr. Jacobs testified that Tapper 1982, including Table 2 and its surrounding
`
`context on pages 146-157, does not disclose “numerically represented cases” or
`
`“cases in any disclosed database.” (See Ex. 1233, ¶ 108.) In response, Dr. Fox
`
`pointed out that Table 2 expressly describes how “the cases in the British database”
`
`have “numbers allocated to the cases.” (Ex. 1233, ¶¶ 108-109.)
`
`871741.01
`
`10
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`portions of the reference discussed by [Patent Owner]’s expert in support of its
`
`patent owner response.” Liberty Mutual I, CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 64.
`
`
`
`Similarly, the patent owner complains that paragraph 114 cites to several
`
`pages that the original Petition did not cite. (Motion at 9.) But paragraphs 113 and
`
`114 respond to opinions raised in Dr. Jacobs’ deposition. (Ex. 1233 ¶¶ 113-114,
`
`citing Jacobs Tr. 313:7-316:23, 339:3-342:6.) Dr. Jacobs’ testimony did not exist
`
`at the time of the original Petition, and Dr. Fox’s reply declaration properly
`
`responds to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions on what a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand from the Tapper Papers. “[T]he mere fact that the Rebuttal Declaration
`
`cites to evidence that was not discussed specifically in the Petition is insufficient to
`
`establish the impropriety of such evidence, much less inadmissibility under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence.” Vibrant Media, IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 at 41.
`
`
`
`The patent owner further asserts that Petitioners, in their original Petition for
`
`’494 patent claim 18, “only quote and cite to” various pages from the Tapper
`
`Papers “without any analysis regarding the relevancy of these cited portions in the
`
`Tapper papers.” (Motion at 9.) This assertion is incorrect. The Petition set forth
`
`extensive textual discussion and italicized analyses explaining how the cited
`
`passages are relevant to the claims and also underlined particularly noteworthy
`
`disclosures. (Paper 1 at 26-37.) In any event, after the patent owner elected to
`
`submit extensive expert testimony discussing the Tapper Papers, the Petitioners
`
`871741.01
`
`11
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`were permitted to submit testimony in response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Vibrant
`
`Media, IPR2013-00172, Paper 50 at 41; Liberty Mutual I, CBM2012-00002, Paper
`
`66 at 64; Kyocera, IPR2013-00007, IPR2013-000256, Paper 51 at 34-35.
`
`D. Dr. Fox Properly Cites Dr. Jacobs’ Book to Rebut Dr. Jacobs’
`Opinions.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude a copy of a book edited by its expert, Dr.
`
`Jacobs, and various paragraphs of Dr. Fox’s reply declaration that discuss Dr.
`
`Jacobs’ book. (Motion at 10-13.) This challenge is similarly baseless. The
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Fox discussed Dr. Jacobs’ book because the book directly
`
`undermines Dr. Jacobs’ opinions on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art and how such a person would have understood the prior art.
`
`
`
`The Petitioners did not rely on Dr. Jacobs’ book or Dr. Fox’s testimony
`
`about that book as a new ground of invalidity, as new invalidating reference, or as
`
`part of their prima facie case of obviousness. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00007,
`
`IPR2013-000256, Paper 51 at 34-35 (denying motion to exclude: “The additional
`
`references . . . were not presented as new challenges to the claims, but to support
`
`that tapping a touch screen was well known in the art.”). The Petitioners had no
`
`reason to cite that book until after the patent owner submitted testimony from Dr.
`
`Jacobs that contradicted his own earlier work.
`
`
`
`For example, the patent owner relied on testimony from Dr. Jacobs that it
`
`was not obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art to use indirect relationships
`
`871741.01
`
`12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`for searching. But Dr. Jacobs’ book confirms the opposite: that using indirect
`
`relationships for searching was already known in the art. (Ex. 1030, ¶¶ 400-408
`
`(citing and discussing papers from Dr. Jacobs’ book).) Dr. Fox’s declaration at
`
`paragraphs 398-404, 406, 407, and 409 responds to Dr. Jacobs’ opinions, with
`
`paragraph 398 identifying the applicable paragraphs from Dr. Jacobs’ declaration.
`
`(See Ex. 1233, ¶ 398 et seq.) Similarly, paragraph 95 cites Dr. Jacobs’ book
`
`merely to further illustrate what was known to persons of skill in the art, not as a
`
`new basis of invalidity. Kyocera, IPR2013-00007, IPR2013-000256, Paper 51 at
`
`34-35.
`
`Patent Owner Was Free to Depose Dr. Fox, But Chose Not To.
`
`E.
`The patent owner argues that it did not have enough time to review Dr.
`
`
`
`Fox’s declaration to prepare for a deposition. (Motion at 12.) But this argument is
`
`similarly baseless. The Petitioners served their reply papers on September 5, 2014,
`
`a full three weeks before patent owner filed the present Motion and nearly two
`
`months before the oral argument scheduled for October 30, 2014. The patent
`
`owner had ample time to review Dr. Fox’s declaration. The patent owner simply
`
`made the tactical decision to seek to strike the reply evidence as being “new”
`
`instead of cross-examining Dr. Fox.
`
`871741.01
`
`13
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR A “SUR-
`REPLY.”
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`
`
`
`The patent owner alternatively requests that it be granted a “sur-reply”
`
`filing. (Motion at 14.) The Board should deny this request. “[B]y standard
`
`procedure, the Petitioner has the last word with regard to the petition.” Liberty
`
`Mutual I, CBM2012-00002, Paper 38 at 2. As explained above, the patent owner’s
`
`Motion does not even attempt to demonstrate that any of Petitioners’ reply
`
`evidence was not properly responsive to the hundreds of pages of expert opinions
`
`raised in Patent Owner’s Response. To grant the patent owner a sur-reply filing
`
`would encourage every patent owner to forego cross-examining reply declarants,
`
`and instead file baseless motions to exclude as a tactical means to obtain the last
`
`word through a sur-reply brief.
`
`V. CONCLUSION.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the patent owner’s Motion should be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`Dated: October 10, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Heidi L. Keefe
`Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`871741.01
`
`14
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/00US
`(309101-2060)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2013-00479
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that a complete copy of the
`
`attached PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 is being served
`via electronic mail on the 10TH day of October, 2014, the same day as the filing of
`the above-identified document in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon the counsel of record for the patent
`owner as follows:
`
`Martin M. Zoltick
`Nancy J. Linck
`Soumya P. Panda
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck PC
`607 14th Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington DC 20005
`Service Email: SRA-IPR@rfem.com
`
`
`
` /
`
` Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Heidi L. Keefe
`Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`871741.01
`
`15
`
`