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 IPR2014-00579
`Patent 7,104,347
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OOF CONTTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
` INTTRODUCTIION ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOORD’S REPPLY EVIDEENCE IS OUTSIDE THHE SCOPEE OF FORDD’S PETITIOON 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
` PAIII. AICE’S MO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTION IS PPROCEDURRALLY PRROPER ..................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAAICE’S ARRGUMENT REGARDIING THE DDEFECTS INN FORD’S
`
`PETITIONN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUURTHER DDEMONSTRRATES THHAT FORD’’S REPLY EEVIDENCEE IS OUTSIIDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THHE SCOPEE OF FORDD’S PETITIOON. ............................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`
`
`INNTRODUUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`FFord cannot dispute thhat its replyy contains
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`new evideence that iss necessaryy to
`
`
`
`make ouut a prima facie case of unpatenntability. TThus, Fordd in its oppposition ressorts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to an arrray of tanggential arguuments dessigned to ddistract fromm the meriits of Paicee’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motion. As Ford hhas failed to justify tthe inclusioon of new
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence inn its reply,,
`
`
`
`
`
`Paice reespectfullyy requests thhe exclusioon of Fordd’s impropeer reply evvidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`FFORD’S RREPLY EVVIDENCEE IS OUTSSIDE THEE SCOPE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONN
`
`
`
`Ford’s arguument that its reply evvidence waas submitteed in respoonse to Pai
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF FORDD’S
`
`ce’s
`
`P F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent OOwner’s RResponse faails to rebuut Paice’s pprinciple coomplaint——that Ford
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submitted new eviidence thatt is necessaary to makke out a priima facie ccase of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatenntability. TThe Trial PPractice Guuide makess clear that
`
`
`
`
`
`“[t]he subbmission off
`
`
`
`prima faci
`new eviidence thatt (i) is neceessary to mmake out a p
`ie case of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatenntability” inndicates thhat “a new issue has bbeen improoperly raiseed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reply.” Office Pattent Trial PPractice Guuide, 77 Feed. Reg. 1557, 48767
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Aug. 14,
`
`2012).
`
`
`
`
`Ford tellinngly does nnot contendd that it maade out a pprima faciee case of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatenntability in its petitionn.
`
`
`
`FFord’s ownn characteriization of iits petition n reveals thhe inadequaacy of its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`originall invalidityy assertion. Ford claiims that it aargued in tthe first insstance thatt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“the Buumby refereences’ 2166 Volt “batttery” couldld be conneected to annd provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`current to the discclosed “starrter motor”” (i.e. the cclaimed “fifirst electricc motor”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`(Petition 34-35; Ex. 1108 at ¶¶259-265.).” Opposition at 3 (emphasis added). But
`
`Ford is certainly aware that establishing that the 216 Volt “battery” could be
`
`connected to and provide current to the starter motor is not adequate to
`
`demonstrate a prima facie case of obviousness. Moreover, Ford’s above citation to
`
`pages 34-35 of its petition only confirms that Ford presented no evidence or
`
`argument in its petition that the Bumby references disclose providing current from
`
`the battery to the conventional starter motor or that such a configuration would be
`
`obvious. Such arguments are absent from the pages on which Ford relies.
`
`Other key omissions show that Ford failed to present a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness in the first instance. For example, Ford does not dispute that Dr.
`
`Davis’s argument that it was obvious to connect generic motors to generic power
`
`sources was purely conclusory and did not address why it would be obvious to
`
`connect the 12 volt conventional starter motor in the Bumby references to the high
`
`voltage (216 volt) hybrid traction battery. Instead, Ford offers up an excuse—that
`
`it could not anticipate the arguments made in Paice’s Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Such an argument is a red herring and should be ignored. Paice merely identified
`
`holes in Dr. Davis’s opinion that were the natural result of Dr. Davis’s superficial
`
`analysis, which failed to consider the details of the specific conventional starter
`
`motor and high voltage battery.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThat Paice ppointed ouut the deficiencies notted above
`
`
`
`
`
`in its Patennt Owner’ss
`
`
`
`
`
`Response should nnot give Foord carte blanche to tthrow in neew evidencce and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`argumennts by wayy of a replyy declaratioon that falll clearly ouutside the sscope of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ford’s ooriginal peetition and accompanyying declaaration. Too allow Forrd to shoehhorn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such belated evideence into thhe record bby way of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a reply decclaration wwould
`
`
`
`
`
`substanttially prejuudice Paicee. Paice caannot respoond to thesse new arguuments andd is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`effectivvely left hellpless to deefend againnst argumeents that Foord shouldd have madde in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the firstt instance. Ford shouuld not be rrewarded ffor using PPaice’s Pateent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response as a roaadmap to fiill in the veery holes thhat Paice ppointed outt.
`
`
`
`
`
` PAICIIII. CE’S MOT
`
`
`
`TION IS PPROCEDUURALLYY PROPERR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPaice’s insttant motionn to excludde is properr and confoforms to booth the Boaard’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rules annd Trial Praactice Guidde. The Trrial Practicce Guide sttates, “[a] pparty wishhing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vidence att the
`
`
`
`a motion tto exclude
`
`the
`
`
`
`to challeenge the addmissibilitty of evidennce must oobject timeely to the e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`point it is offered and then ppreserve thee objectionn by filing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidencce.” Officee Patent Trrial Practice Guide, 777 Fed. Regg. 157, 487767 (Aug.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2012) (cciting 37 CC.F.R. § 422.64(a), (b))(1), and (cc)). Paice ddid just thaat. Paice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`objectedd to the eviidence at issue as “ouutside the ppermitted sscope of thhe reply” (EEx.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2113 at 2) and fileed the instaant motion to preservve its objecction. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Board rulees
`
`
`
`explicit
`
`
`
`
`ly recognizze that i) reeplies cannnot introduuce new evvidence andd new
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`argumennts per 37 C.F.R. § 442.23 and tthat ii) eviddence submmitted via aa reply in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (or any other part of 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 – 80) is
`
`inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.61; Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`157, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012). This is not a situation in which a motion to exclude is
`
`being used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or to strike arguments from
`
`a reply. Instead, Paice’s motion to exclude challenges the admissibility of
`
`evidence (additional exhibits and testimony) as being outside of the proper scope
`
`(not whether the evidence is sufficient to prove a particular point). Thus, both
`
`Paice’s objection and instant motion comply with the Board’s rules and the
`
`Office’s Trial Practice Guide by identifying a proper evidentiary basis that goes to
`
`the heart of admissibility.
`
`Ford’s procedural argument—that Paice should have filed a motion to strike
`
`instead of a motion to exclude—is purely form over substance and does not tell the
`
`whole story. First, the Board’s rules and Trial Practice Guide do not provide for
`
`motions to strike. They only provide for motions to exclude. Second, despite
`
`Ford’s implications to the contrary, the Board has not uniformly found that
`
`motions to exclude are the improper vehicle for raising issues regarding scope.
`
`Indeed, a number of Board panels have considered on the merits the propriety of
`
`the introduction of new evidence and arguments via a motion to exclude. See, e.g.,
`
`Bank of America v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00033, Paper 47 at 24-
`
`25; Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, IPR2014-00480, Paper
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55 at 211-22; EMCC Corporation et al. vv. PersonallWeb Tech
`
`
`
`
`
`nologies eet al.,
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00082, PPaper 83 att 57-58.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
` PPAICE’S AARGUMEENT REGAARDING
`
`
`
`THE DEFFECTS INN FORD’SS
`
`
`
`PETITIONN FURTHER DEMOONSTRA
`
`
`
`TES THAAT FORD’’S REPLYY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EVIDENCCE IS OUTTSIDE THHE SCOPEE OF FORRD’S PETTITION.
`
`PE P
`
`
`
`Paice’s arguument regaarding the defects of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ford’s pettition goes
`
`
`
`to the issuue
`
`
`
`has improoperly raiseed new
`
`
`
`
`
`that is aat the heart of this mootion—wheether Ford
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidencce in its repply. As disscussed aboove, the Trrial Practicce Guide sttates that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`essary to mmake out aa prima fac
`
`
`
`ie
`
`new issue
`
`
`
`has been iimproperlyy
`
`
`
`
`
`“[t]he suubmission of new evvidence thaat (i) is nec
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`case of unpatentabbility” is a tell-tale siign that “a
`
`
`
`
`
`raised inn the replyy.” Office PPatent Triaal Practice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Guide, 777 Fed. Reg.. 157, 487667
`
`
`
`
`
`is of the P
`(Aug. 14, 2012). Therefore,, an analys
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`etition andd accompannying
`
`
`
`
`
`declarattion is neceessary to ddetermine tthe proprieety of the reeply evidennce. As Paaice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`demonsstrated in itts motion, tthe juxtapoosition of tthe sparsityy of Ford’ss petition wwith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the litanny of new aarguments and exhibbits containned in Fordd’s reply cllearly showws
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus Paicce’s argumment is propper
`
`
`
`
`
`should be
`
`
`
`ignored. IIndeed, Foord
`
`
`
`
`
`that Forrd’s reply eevidence iss new and iimproper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Forrd’s argument to expuunge Paicee’s motion
`
`
`
`
`
`providees no rationnale or authhority for iits request
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to expungee the motioon in its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`entiretyy based on FFord’s argument thatt a single ssection of tthe motionn is improp
`
`
`
`
`
`er.
`
`
`
`For the reasons seet forth aboove, Paice rrespectfullly requestss that the BBoard excluude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ford’s iimproper reply evideence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Dated: May 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on May 28, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Reply in
`
`Support of It’s Motion to Exclude was provided via email to the Petitioner by
`
`serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`John Nemazi, John Rondini
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Email: FPGP0101IPR3@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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Susan C. Johnson/
`
`Susan C. Johnson
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(214) 292-4086
`
`