UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE
`CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. GREGORY DAVIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE
`CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. GREGORY DAVIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Arbitration Agreement between Paice LLC and Ford Motor
`Company
`Declaration of Neil Hannemann
`
`Dr. Gregory W. Davis Deposition Transcript (Jan. 13, 2015)
`
`Excerpt from File History for U.S. Patent 8,214,097
`
`Integrated Microprocessor Control of a Hybrid i.c.
`Engine/Battery-Electric Automotive Power Train,” P.W.
`Masding, J.R. Bumby, Jan. 1990
`Masding, Philip Wilson (1988) “Some drive train control
`problems in hybrid i.c engine/battery electric vehicles,” Durham
`theses, Durham University
`Excerpt from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`Technical Terms, Sixth Ed., 2003.
`Neil Hannemann CV
`
`Paice v. Ford, C.A. No. 1:14-cv-00492-WDQ, Complaint (Feb.
`19, 2014)
`Griffith Hack Report
`
`Declaration in support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Peter
`Guarnieri
`Transcript of Deposition of Gregory W. Davis, Ph.D.
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit
`Number
`PAICE Ex.
`2001
`PAICE Ex.
`2002
`PAICE Ex.
`2003
`PAICE Ex.
`2004
`PAICE Ex.
`2005
`
`PAICE Ex.
`2006
`
`PAICE Ex.
`2007
`PAICE Ex.
`2008
`PAICE Ex.
`2009
`PAICE Ex.
`2010
`PAICE Ex.
`2011
`PAICE Ex.
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`In exhibit 2012, on page 37, lines 8-24, Dr. Davis testified that one
`
`1.
`
`could not determine whether or not the instantaneous torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle would be positive or negative from looking at only the pedal position when
`
`the driver presses on the accelerator pedal from 0% to 10% because pedal position
`
`does not provide enough information. Dr. Davis continued to testify on page 37,
`
`line 25 – page 38, line 3, that he would need to know the speed of the vehicle and
`
`whether or not the vehicle was going down a hill to make such a determination.
`
`This testimony is relevant to paragraph 8 of Dr. Davis’ Reply Declaration (Ex.
`
`1038), where Dr. Davis testified that accelerator pedal position correlates to the
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that accelerator pedal position alone is not sufficient to determine the
`
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.
`
`2.
`
`In exhibit 2012, on page 73, line 20 – page 74, line 11 and page 78,
`
`line 10 – page 79, line 1, Dr. Davis testified that he is relying on U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,343,970’s (“Severinsky”, Ex. 1003) disclosure of a mode called “high-speed
`
`acceleration and/or hill climbing mode” to satisfy the limitation “[e]mploying both
`
`said at least one electric motor and said engine to propel said vehicle when the
`
`torque RL required to do so is more than MTO” of claim 23 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,104,347. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 286-287 of Dr. Davis’
`
`Original Declaration (Ex. 1005) where he testified that in the high-speed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`acceleration and/or hill climbing mode illustrated in Fig. 6, Severinsky “discloses
`
`operating the motor to provide supplemental torque when the torque required for
`
`propulsion of the vehicle exceeds the capability (i.e., maximum torque output) of
`
`the engine.” This testimony is relevant because it reinforces Dr. Davis’ previous
`
`assertion that Severinsky’s high-speed acceleration and/or hill climbing mode is
`
`related to when to turn on the motor and is entered when the alleged torque
`
`required to propel the vehicle is above 100% of the maximum torque output of the
`
`engine.
`
`3.
`
`In exhibit 2012, on page 70, line 15 – page 71, line 25, Dr. Davis
`
`testified that in Severinsky’s (Ex. 1003) disclosed high-speed acceleration and/or
`
`hill climbing mode, the engine and motor turn on when the torque required to
`
`propel the vehicle is above 60% of the maximum torque output of the engine. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 286-287 of Dr. Davis’ Original Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1005) where he testified that in the high-speed acceleration and/or hill
`
`climbing mode illustrated in Fig. 6, Severinsky “discloses operating the motor to
`
`provide supplemental torque when the torque required for propulsion of the vehicle
`
`exceeds the capability (i.e., maximum torque output) of the engine.” This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Davis’ new theory clearly
`
`contradicts his previous assertion that Severinsky’s high-speed acceleration and/or
`
`hill climbing mode is entered when the alleged torque required to propel the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`vehicle is above 100% of the maximum torque output of the engine and not 60% of
`
`the maximum torque output of the engine as he now alleges.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Timothy W. Riffe/
`Timothy W. Riffe (Reg. No. 43,881)
`Kevin Greene, (Reg. No. 46,031)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`P.O. Box 1022
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`Tel: (202) 626-6447
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Paice LLC & Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on May 15, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observations on the Cross Examination of Dr. Gregory Davis was
`
`provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses
`
`of record as follows:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Email: FPGP0101IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road
`Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-11251
`Email: lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`Email: kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`Email: iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`4
`
`
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
