`
` Filed: October 17, 2014
`
`Filed on behalf of: Software Rights Archive, LLC Paper ____
`
`
`
`
`By: Martin M. Zoltick, Lead Counsel
`Nancy J. Linck, Back-up Counsel
`Soumya P. Panda, Back-up Counsel
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`E-mail: mzoltick@rfem.com
` nlinck@rfem.com
` spanda@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`Patent 5,832,494
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`I.
`CROSS-EXAMINATION INADEQUATE ......................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE IS
`PROCEDURALLY PROPER ............................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS MET REQUIRED BURDEN OF PROOF .. 3
`
`IV. DR. FOX’S TESTIMONY PRESENTS NEW ARGUMENTS ........... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`New argument on “selecting a node for analysis” (claim 1) .... 4
`
`New argument on “generating candidate cluster links” ........... 4
`
`New argument on “number of candidate cluster links are
`limited” (claim 5) ...................................................................... 5
`
`New argument on “selecting the destination” (claim 14) ......... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Cases
`Scotts Co., LLC v. Encap LLC,
`IPR2013-00110 (PTAB June 24, 2014) ........................................................ 2, 3, 4
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ......................................................................................... 2, 3, 5
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (August 14, 2012) .................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Cross-Examination Inadequate
`Petitioners contend that Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Dr. Fox regarding his testimony in the Fox Reply Declaration (Ex. 1028)
`
`(hereinafter “Reply Dec.”). However, Petitioners’ strategy of presenting expert
`
`testimony that changes positions, or explains its reasoning for its position for the
`
`first time on the reply brief, is highly prejudicial and clearly circumvents the rules
`
`set up for Patent Owner to adequately cross-examine Petitioners’ declarant.
`
`Primarily, as noted in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 44),
`
`Petitioners have changed their position regarding the claimed feature of “selecting
`
`a node,” and presented for the first time, expert testimony regarding why similarity
`
`values and other information constitute a candidate cluster link and otherwise
`
`meets the elements of the claim. Paper 45 at 4-7. Now, after Patent Owner has
`
`submitted its response with no further opportunity to submit additional evidence,
`
`let alone expert testimony, Petitioners have, to their own benefit, submitted expert
`
`testimony changing their positions and explaining their positions for the first time.
`
`Patent Owner submits that cross examination of Dr. Fox is insufficient since Patent
`
`Owner is merely limited to single paragraph observations without any recourse to
`
`submit any rebuttal expert testimony.
`
` Such tactics are highly prejudicial to Patent Owner and would encourage
`
`future petitioners to follow the same tactics if Patent Owner is not granted the
`
`requested relief. In other words, Petitioner’s tactics present the worst possible
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`scenario where any petitioner can (i) file a petition with a complete absence of
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`expert testimony on a particular position, and after filing of the patent owner
`
`response, (ii) submit voluminous expert testimony with new positions and new
`
`explanations that Patent Owner is unable to countervail with its own expert. If
`
`exclusion or a Reply brief is not appropriate under the circumstances where new
`
`arguments are presented, it would essentially create a procedural vehicle that
`
`allows Petitioners to completely shield their experts from any expert scrutiny of
`
`their opinions. Such tactics must be discouraged.1
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is Procedurally Proper
`The Petitioner’s contend that (i) “[t]he Board has repeatedly “denied
`
`motions to exclude where the patent owner alleged that reply evidence or a reply
`
`argument was ‘new,’” and (ii) the Board warned the Patent Owner not to file a
`
`motion to exclude alleging new evidence. (Paper No. 45 at 2, 3). It is respectfully
`
`submitted that Patent Owner is entitled to submit a motion to exclude the Reply
`
`Dec. In a response to Petitioner’s email, the Board noted 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 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2014)(emphasis
`
`added). Consistent with the Board’s guidance, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`does not request to strike any portion of Petitioners’ reply.
`
`
`1 Due to these egregious violations, Patent Owner submits that it should be granted
`relief to submit its own reply declaration in response to Dr. Fox’s Reply Dec.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Instead, based on an objection under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), Patent Owner
`
`requests the Board to strike specific portions of the testimony in the Reply Dec. A
`
`motion to exclude for striking expert testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) is
`
`proper. See Scotts Co., LLC v. Encap LLC, IPR2013-00110, Paper 79, at 7 (PTAB
`
`June 24, 2014). For example, in Scotts Co., LLC v. Encap LLC, the Petitioner
`
`submitted a motion to exclude expert testimony based on an objection under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Scotts Co., LLC, IPR2013-00110, Paper 52, at 8 and 12. The
`
`Board granted the motion to exclude in-part noting that (i) “it is clear that the
`
`majority of the … [expert testimony] is in support of … [Patent Owner’s] Motion
`
`to Amend rather than in rebuttal to … [Petitioner’s] Opposition,” and (ii) the
`
`expert testimony included material that “could have been submitted with … [Patent
`
`Owner’s] Motion to Amend,” and is therefore, improper Scotts Co., LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79, at 7.
`
`III. Patent Owner Has Met Required Burden of Proof
`Petitioners contend that Patent Owner did not meet its burden of proof
`
`because Patent Owner did not discuss arguments presented in the Patent Owner
`
`Response. While some paragraphs of the Reply Dec. cite to Dr. Jacob’s Expert
`
`Declaration, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude identified portions of the Reply
`
`Dec. that (i) show a change in Petitioners’ arguments and (ii) could have been
`
`submitted with the Petition (Paper 1). This expert testimony is precisely the type
`
`of expert testimony the Board excluded in Scott LLC. See Scotts Co., LLC,
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00110, Paper 79, at 7; see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (August 14, 2012)(noting that evidence for establishing
`
`prima facie case and evidence that could have been previously presented is
`
`improper).
`
`IV. Dr. Fox’s Testimony Presents New Arguments
`1.
`New argument on “selecting a node for analysis” (claim 1)
`Petitioners contend that the testimony in paragraphs 275 and 276 is “in light
`
`of the Board’s decision not to require a user-initiated identification.” Paper 45 at
`
`4. However, Patent Owner notes that paragraphs 275 and 276 of the Reply Dec. do
`
`not cite to the Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 17). In fact, paragraphs 275 and
`
`276 do not cite to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 31), Dr. Jacob’s declaration
`
`(Ex. 2113), or the deposition testimony of Dr. Jacobs (Exs. 1029 and 1030). Thus,
`
`Dr. Fox’s testimony regarding the claimed feature of “selecting a node for
`
`analysis” is a new argument that is entirely non-responsive. Accordingly, this
`
`testimony should be excluded.
`
`2.
`New argument on “generating candidate cluster links”
`As discussed in Patent Owner’s motion to exclude, the testimony in
`
`paragraph 279 of the Reply Dec. was not included in the Petition (Paper 2) or Dr.
`
`Fox’s original declaration (Ex. 1009). Petitioners contend that this testimony is
`
`responsive to Dr. Jacob’s declaration (Ex. 2113) at ¶¶’s 134, 140-41, and 143.
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges that paragraph 277 cites to Dr. Jacob’s declaration.
`
`However, paragraph 279 is devoid of any explanation regarding which portion of
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Jacob’s declaration that Dr. Fox is rebutting. Furthermore, Petitioners contend
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`that this testimony is proper because Dr. Fox testified about this disclosure on
`
`cross examination. Even assuming arguendo that Dr. Fox made similar statements
`
`during cross examination, Dr. Fox’s rebuttal testimony must be responsive to the
`
`Patent Owner Response instead of supplementing cross-examination testimony.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Accordingly, paragraph 279 of the Reply Dec. should be
`
`excluded.
`
`3.
`
`New argument on “number of candidate cluster links are limited”
`(claim 5)
`Petitioners contend that Dr. Fox’s testimony at paragraph 286 is in response
`
`to Dr. Jacob’s declaration (Ex. 2113) at ¶¶’s 91-100. However, Dr. Fox’s
`
`testimony at paragraph 286 does not cite to any portion of the Patent Owner
`
`Response or Dr. Jacob’s declaration. That is, this testimony presents a new
`
`argument that is entirely non-responsive.
`
`4.
`New argument on “selecting the destination” (claim 14)
`Petitioners contend that paragraph 290 is responsive to ¶ 205 of Dr. Jacob’s
`
`declaration. Although paragraph 289 of cited to Dr. Jacob’s declaration, paragraph
`
`290 is devoid any discussion of any particular portion of the Patent Owner
`
`response or Dr. Jacob’s declaration that Dr. Fox is rebutting. As such, this
`
`testimony is non response and should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 17, 2014
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Soumya P. Panda/
`Martin M. Zoltick, Reg. No. 35,745
`Nancy J. Linck, Reg. No. 31,920
`Soumya P. Panda, Reg. No. 60,447
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 17th day of October, 2014, a true and correct
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`
`
`
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`was served by electronic mail, upon the following lead, backup and pro hac vice
`
`counsel of record for Petitioners Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe – Lead Counsel for all Petitioners
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Ph: 650-843-5001
`Fx: 650-849-7400
`E-mails: hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`Mark R. Weinstein – Backup Counsel for Facebook, Inc.
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Ph: 650-843-5007
`Fx: 650-849-7400
`E-mail: mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`David Silbert – Backup Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: djs@kvn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00480
`
`Asim M. Bhansali – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: abhansali@kvn.com
`
`Sharif E. Jacobs – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: sjacob@kvn.com
`
`David J. Silbert – Pro Hac Vice Counsel for LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter, Inc.
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Ph: 415-391-5400
`Fx: 415-397-7188
`E-mail: dsilbert@kvn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Erik van Leeuwen
`Erik van Leeuwen
`Litigation Operations Coordinator
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`