By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lana A. Gladstein
`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. IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`EXHIBITS 1018 AND 1019 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ............................ 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1022 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ................................................. 4
`
`III. EXHIBITS 1020 and 1023 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ............................... 4
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 5
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`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
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................. 1
`
`Majdic v. Cincinnati Machine Co., 370 Pa. Super. 611, 537 A.2d 334 (Pa.
`1988) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`QSC Audio Products, Inc. v. Crest Audio, Inc., IPR2014-00127 .............................. 5
`
`Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill, Inc., IPR2014-00084 .................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 CFR § 42.53(d)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`FRE 401 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 402 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 403 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 613(b) ......................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5
`
`FRE 703 ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`FRE 802 ................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`FRE 803 ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`For Inter Partes Review 2013-00598 (U.S. Patent No. 8,214,873)
`
`(PREVIOUSLY FILED) Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`First Amended Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha
`Corp., C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-06054
`
`Frist Amended Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer
`Corp., et. al, C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-05980
`
`Black Hills Media Technology Tutorial Presented to Court at
`Scheduling Conference on November 12, 2013, in Black Hills
`Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp., 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
`in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp., C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-
`06054 and Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et. al,
`C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-05980, among others
`
`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 served on 9/19/2012 in Black
`Hills Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp., C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-06054
`
`Summons Returned Executed by Black Hills Media LLC on
`Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. served on 9/14/2012 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
`Pioneer Corporation served on 9/17/2012 in Black Hills Media,
`LLC v. Pioneer Corp., et. al, C.D.Ca 2:13-cv-05980
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Declaration of Gareth Loy, D.M.A. in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response, including Exhibits A - N thereto
`
`2011
`
`Deposition Transcript of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Bove dated
`
`2012
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`(PREVIOUSLY FILED) Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`5/29/2014
`
`Deposition Transcript of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Bove dated
`5/30/2014
`
`Declaration of Gareth Loy, D.M.A. in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response, including Exhibits A - N thereto
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`
`
`
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`Black Hills Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Reply in support of
`
`its Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 39) and in response to Yamaha Corporation
`
`of America’s (“Petitioner”) Opposition (Paper 44). Exhibits 1018, 1019, 1020, and
`
`1022 should be excluded as inadmissible under FRE 802, 613(b), 401, 402, and
`
`403. Exhibit 1023, should be excluded and expunged as contrary to the rule on
`
`supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBITS 1018 AND 1019 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`In its Reply (Paper 35), Petitioner offered for the first time Exs. 1018 and
`
`1019 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. 1018 and
`
`1019 as attempting to “show[] the state of the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention.” Paper 44 at 2. Though Petitioner attempts to deflect attention from its
`
`inadmissible reliance on Exs. 1018 and 1019 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
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the Microsoft and
`
`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. 1018 and 1019
`
`(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 ‘873 Patent. Indeed, if Petitioner desired to probe the understanding of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as to Exs. 1018 and 1019, Petitioner could have
`
`questioned Patent Owner’s expert during his deposition and/or relied on its own
`
`expert testimony regarding Exs. 1018 and 1019 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-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`Board in Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill, Inc. IPR2014-00084 (Paper 12)
`
`considered third-party patents in claim construction conveniently omitted the fact
`
`that the petitioner’s argument in Tate was “evidenced by Prakash (Ex. 1005, ¶
`
`[0038]), as discussed in Dr. York’s Declaration (Exhibit 1015, ¶43).” Id., (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. [Citation omitted]. 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)….”
`
`Hendricks v. Ford Motor Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187729 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 15,
`
`2012). Like in Hendricks, Petitioner provides no evidence that the statements in
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`Exs. 1018 and 1019 fall under any hearsay exception. Accordingly, Exs. 1018 and
`
`1019 are inadmissible under FRE 802, lack foundation and relevance, confuse the
`
`issues in the instant proceedings under FRE 401/402, and are prejudicial under
`
`FRE 403 in that the Patent Owner has no opportunity to probe their relevance to
`
`this proceeding.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 1022 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, the Motorola reference (Ex. 1022) is
`
`being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein – namely, that “Bi’s
`
`navigator was a form of PDA, as evidenced by comparison between the Motorola
`
`drawing… and Fig. 5 of Bi” (Paper 35 at 12-14) to establish that “the computing
`
`power of Bi and Erekson” were compatible. (Paper 44 at 6-7). Petitioner avoided
`
`subjecting any expert to questions whether Ex. 1022 establishes that Bi’s navigator
`
`was “a form of PDA.” Petitioner’s attempt to belatedly establish a factual issue
`
`based solely on attorney argument is prejudicial to the Patent Owner, lacks any
`
`expert support, and should be excluded pursuant to FRE 402 or 403.
`
`III. EXHIBITS 1020 AND 1023 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`Petitioner’s belated presentation of Dr. Loy’s declaration (Ex. 1020) from
`
`another proceeding as being allegedly inconsistent with his declaration submitted
`
`in this proceeding should be rejected as non-compliant with FRE 613(b) and
`
`prejudicial to the Patent Owner under FRE 403.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`Petitioner’s new excuse that it has “discovered” Ex. 1020 only after the
`
`deposition of Dr. Loy 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” Dr. Loy’s declaration so as to be compliant with both FRE
`
`613(b) and 37 CFR § 42.53(d)(3). Petitioner’s attempt to circumvent the rules
`
`should be rejected. Notably, two of Petitioner’s counsel of record in this
`
`proceedings, Messrs. Belusko and Yap, are also counsel to Apple in the district
`
`court case in which Dr. Loy submitted his allegedly inconsistent declaration (Ex.
`
`1020). Petitioner’s belated discovery of Ex. 1020 is curious indeed.
`
`Petitioner’s disregard for (1) the 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 Ex. 1020 and exclude and expunge Ex. 1023.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, Exhibits 1018, 1019, 1020, 1022, and 1023
`
`introduced for the first time with Petitioner’s Reply should be excluded.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Dated: October 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lana Gladstein/
`Lana Gladstein, Reg. No. 48,502
`Thomas J. Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: (617) 204-5100
`Fax: (617) 204-5150
`
`Theodosios Thomas, Reg. No. 45,159
`Black Hills Media, LLC
`5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
`Raleigh, NC 27607
`Tel: (919) 233-1942, Ext. 203
`Fax: (919) 233-9907
`
`Christopher Horgan, Reg. No. 40,394
`Concert Technology
`1438 Dahlia Loop
`San Jose, CA 95126
`Tel: (408) 687-8306
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Black Hills Media, LLC
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00598
`U.S. Patent 8,214,873
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`dfehrman@mofo.com
`marjomand@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I
`
`
`
` hereby certify that on October 3, 2014, a true and accurate copy of this paper,
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE, was served on the following counsel for Petitioner Yamaha Corp. of
`America 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lana Gladstein/
`Lana Gladstein, Reg. No. 48,502
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: (617) 204-5100
`Fax: (617) 204-5150
`
`
`#26979512 v1
`
`
`
`