`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas Engellenner
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00594
`Patent 8,050,652
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iii
`
`EXHIBITS 1017 AND 1018 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ............................ 1
`I.
`EXHIBIT 1021 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ................................................. 4
`II.
`III. EXHIBITS 1020 AND 1023 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ............................ 4
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 2006 WL
`1330003 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) ..................................................................... 3
`
`Page(s)
`
`Hay & Forage Indus. v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D.
`Kan. 1998) ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`Hendricks v. Ford Motor Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187729 (E.D. Tex.
`Oct. 15, 2012) ................................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................... 1
`
`Majdic v. Cincinnati Machine Co., 370 Pa. Super. 611, 537 A.2d 334
`(Pa. 1988) .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill, Inc., IPR2014-00084
`(PTAB April 1, 2014) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`QSC Audio Products, Inc. v. Crest Audio, Inc., IPR2014-00127
`(PTAB June 12, 2014) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(3) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`FRE 401 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 402 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 403 ............................................................................................................. 1, 4, 5
`
`FRE 613(b) ............................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`FRE 703 ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`FRE 802 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Previously filed
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`First Amended Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC
`v. Yamaha Corp. of America, D. Del. 1:12-cv-00635.
`
`Declaration of Thomas Engellenner in Support of
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`First Amended Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC
`v. Pioneer Corp., et al., D. Del. 1:12-cv-00634.
`
`Black Hills Media Technology Tutorial Presented to
`Court at Scheduling Conference on November 12,
`2013, in in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp.
`of America, C.D. Ca. 2:13-cv-06054 and Black Hills
`Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et al., C.D. Ca. 2:13-
`cv-05980.
`
`Transcript of the November 12, 2013, Scheduling
`Conference in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha
`Corp. of America, C.D. Ca. 2:13-cv-06054 and Black
`Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et al., C.D. Ca.
`2:13-cv-05980.
`
`Pioneer’s Notice of Election Regarding Certain Inter
`Partes Reviews in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer
`Corp., et al., C.D. Ca. 2:13-cv-05980.
`
`Summons Returned Executed by Black Hills Media,
`LLC on Yamaha Corporation of America in Black
`Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp. of America, D.
`Del. 1:12-cv-00635.
`
`Summons Returned Executed by Black Hills Media,
`LLC on Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. in Black Hills
`Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et al., D. Del. 1:12-cv-
`00634.
`
`-iii-
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2003
`
`2003 [sic]
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`

`

`
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`Previously filed (continued)
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Summons Returned Executed by Black Hills Media,
`LLC on Pioneer Corporation in Black Hills Media,
`LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et al., D. Del. 1:12-cv-00634.
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2010
`
`Declaration of Ivan Zatkovich
`
`TerraTec M3PO High Quality Audio
`Decoder Manual (May 18, 2000)
`
`Siren Juken Operating Manual (2000)
`
`Microsoft Windows Media Player 7 Handbook, Ch. 2
`(October 4, 2000)
`
`Bove Deposition Transcript and Exhibits, May 30,
`2014
`
`Bove Deposition Transcript and Exhibits, May 29,
`2014
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Served on
`August 18, 2014, In Response To Petitioner’s Reply
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Black Hills Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Reply in support of
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`
`
`its Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 35) and in response to Yamaha Corporation
`
`of America’s (“Petitioner”) Opposition (Paper 40). Exs. 1017, 1018, 1020, and
`
`1021 should be excluded as inadmissible under one or more of FRE 802, 613(b),
`
`401, 402, and 403. Ex. 1023 should be excluded and expunged as it was not
`
`previously served in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2).
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBITS 1017 AND 1018 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`In its Reply (Paper 31), Petitioner offered for the first time Exs. 1017 and
`
`1018 as evidence that Microsoft and Apple – the purported declarants which are
`
`not parties to this proceeding – support Petitioner’s unduly broad construction of
`
`the term “playlist.” Petitioner cannot now re-cast its reliance on Exs. 1017 and
`
`1018 as attempting to “show[] the state of the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention.” Paper 40 at 2. Though Petitioner attempts to deflect attention from its
`
`inadmissible reliance on Exs. 1017 and 1018 in asserting that claim construction is
`
`a “purely legal issue” (id.), and that “expert testimony is ‘permitted,’ but certainly
`
`not required for claim construction” (id. at 11), Petitioner ignores that “claim terms
`
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the patent at
`
`issue.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). While
`
`Petitioner could have proffered evidence in the form of an expert declaration on
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Microsoft and
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`Apple patent documents and their applicability to the patent at issue in this IPR,
`
`Petitioner did not do so. As a result, Patent Owner is prejudiced since Petitioner
`
`foreclosed Patent Owner’s ability to cross-examine Petitioner’s expert to probe the
`
`veracity of the assertions that Petitioner’s counsel now makes in its Reply.
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the isolated passages from Exs. 1017 and 1018
`
`(where patent applicants defined terms however they desire).1 In contrast, Patent
`
`Owner’s expert confirmed that the various publications cited in his report
`
`describing commercially-available products in the field of the art used the term
`
`“playlist” consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and as
`
`used in the ‘652 Patent. Indeed, if Petitioner desired to probe the understanding of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as to Exs. 1017 and 1018, Petitioner could have
`
`questioned Patent Owner’s expert during his deposition and/or relied on its own
`
`expert testimony regarding Exs. 1017 and 1018 as permitted under FRE 703.
`
`Petitioner, however, delayed the presentation of these exhibits in such a manner as
`
`to preclude any substantive investigation. Tellingly, Petitioner’s assertion that the
`
`
`1 Despite Petitioner’s contentions, each of the selected passages support Patent
`
`Owner’s construction that items in a playlist are arranged to be played in a
`
`continuous fashion, one after another.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`Board in Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill, Inc. (IPR2014-00084, Paper 12)
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`considered third-party patents in claim construction conveniently omitted the fact
`
`that the petitioner’s argument in Tate was “evidenced by Prakash (Exhibit 1005, ¶
`
`[0038]), as discussed in Dr. York’s Declaration (Exhibit 1015, ¶43).” IPR2014-
`
`00084, (Paper 1 at 7) (emphasis added). Petitioner did not rely on any such expert
`
`evidence here.
`
`Likewise, Petitioner’s reliance on Fresenius v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. and Hay &
`
`Forage Indus. v. New Holland N. Am., Inc. as implying that patents per se fall
`
`within the “public records exception” to hearsay is incorrect. Though the records
`
`of the Patent Office may fall under the public records exception to the hearsay rule,
`
`statements in patent documents generally lack assurances of trustworthiness and
`
`are hearsay:
`
`It is settled law that while patents are hearsay, the patents themselves fall
`under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. [Citations omitted]…
`The statements made in the patents, however, must also fall under a hearsay
`exception. Harper, 61 S.W.3d at 126. The statements made in the patents
`offered by Plaintiff fall under no such [hearsay] exception. See Majdic v.
`Cincinnati Machine Co., 370 Pa. Super. 611, 537 A.2d 334, 339-40 (Pa.
`1988) (finding that patents do not have the intrinsic assurances of
`trustworthiness and therefore are not readily admissible, are hearsay, and do
`not fall under the learned treatise exception)….”
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`Hendricks v. Ford Motor Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187729 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 15,
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`2012). Like in Hendricks, Petitioner provides no evidence that the statements in
`
`Exs. 1017 and 1018 fall under any hearsay exception. Accordingly, Exs. 1017 and
`
`1018 are inadmissible under FRE 802, lack foundation and relevance, confuse the
`
`issues in the instant proceedings under FRE 401/402, or are prejudicial under FRE
`
`403 in that Patent Owner has no opportunity to probe their relevance to this IPR.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 1021 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`Petitioner’s reply fails to establish how Ex. 1021 makes any fact more or
`
`less probable in this proceeding. Again, Petitioner cites to no portion of Ex. 1021
`
`as to what a “playlist” actually is and noticeably avoids characterizing the
`
`disclosure of Ex. 1021 in this regard. Indeed, by Petitioner’s belated presentation,
`
`Petitioner avoided subjecting any expert to questions as to the disclosure of Ex.
`
`1021 in which songs in a playlist are described as being arranged to be played in a
`
`sequence, one after another. Petitioner’s selective reliance on irrelevant portions of
`
`Ex. 1021 therefore lacks any relevance to this proceeding, confuses the issues, is
`
`prejudicial to the Patent Owner by Petitioner’s belated, unsupported presentation,
`
`and should be excluded under FRE 402 or 403.
`
`III. EXHIBITS 1020 AND 1023 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`Petitioner’s belated presentation of Mr. Zatkovich’s declaration (Ex. 1020)
`
`from another proceeding as being allegedly inconsistent with his declaration
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`submitted in this proceeding should be rejected as being non-compliant with FRE
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`613(b) and prejudicial to the Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner’s new excuse that it has “discovered” Ex. 1020 only after the
`
`deposition of Mr. Zatkovich and its counsel’s self-serving declaration (Ex. 1023)
`
`filed for the first time with its Opposition is specious at best. Petitioner had six
`
`weeks in which to “discover” Mr. Zatkovich’s declaration so as to be compliant
`
`under FRE 613(b) and 37 CFR 42.53(d)(3).
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to circumvent the rules should be rejected. Petitioner’s
`
`disregard for (1) Federal Rule of Evidence 613, which is clearly applicable to this
`
`proceeding by statute, (2) the Board’s procedure for submission of supplemental
`
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2), and (3) the prohibition of submission of
`
`unauthorized supplemental evidence should not be endorsed by the Board. See
`
`QSC Audio Products, Inc. v. Crest Audio, Inc., IPR2014-00127 (PTAB, Paper 17
`
`at 2) (describing the proper procedure for supplemental evidence). Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board exclude and expunge Exs. 1020
`
`and 1023.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, Exs. 1017, 1018, 1020, and 1021 should be
`
`excluded, and Ex. 1025 excluded and expunged.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`Dated: October 3, 2014
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00594
`U.S. Patent No. 8,050,652
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on October 3, 2014, a true and accurate copy of this
`
`paper, PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSTION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE, was served on the following counsel for Petitioner via
`email:
`
`David L. Fehrman
`Mehran Arjomand
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Tel: (213) 892-5630
`Fax: (323) 210-1329
`
`
`Dated: October 3, 2014
`
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`