`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`Filed on behalf of UUSI, LLC
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp.com)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`Telephone: (248) 641-1600
`Facsimile: (248) 641-0270
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK EHSANI AND
`INADMISSIBLE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`1.
`
`DR. EHSANI USED CORRECT LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN
`FORMING HIS OPINION AND PREPARING HIS
`DECLARATION................................................................................. 2
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Ehsani did not prepare his Declaration with the incorrect
`understanding that the patent is presumed valid and requires
`clear and convincing evidence to invalidate ............................. 2
`
`Dr. Ehsani formed his opinion and prepared his Declaration
`with the correct claim interpretation understanding ................. 3
`
`c.
`
`Dr. Ehsani did not construe claims contrary to their structure . 7
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`DR. EHSANI FULLY ANSWERED THE DEPOSITION
`QUESTIONS; PETITIONER SIMPLY DID NOT LIKE THE
`ANSWERS .......................................................................................... 9
`
`PATENT OWNER DID NOT FILE INADMISSIBLE
`EXHIBITS ......................................................................................... 10
`
`4.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`Petitioner admits that this motion is identical to its motion filed in the IPR
`
`2014-00648 for the '612 Patent except for the paragraphs and exhibits it moves to
`
`exclude. Paper 25 at 1. As a result, most of Petitioner's arguments in its motion
`
`filed in IPR 2014-00648, which Petitioner merely reproduced in this motion, and
`
`which are specific to the '612 Patent, are inapplicable to this IPR and are therefore
`
`irrelevant to this IPR. Patent Owner nonetheless responds below to all of
`
`Petitioner's arguments for completeness.
`
`The Board should deny Petitioner's Motion to Exclude the Declaration of
`
`Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Mark Ehsani, and certain exhibits relied on by Patent
`
`Owner and its expert in its Response. The Board should deny the motion because
`
`Dr. Ehsani formed his opinion and prepared his Declaration using the correct legal
`
`standards and claim construction methods. Further, Dr. Ehsani fully answered
`
`Petitioner's questions, often repeatedly asked by Petitioner over the course of two
`
`days, and Petitioner's unhappiness with Dr. Ehsani's answers is not the same as his
`
`resisting answering questions and is therefore insufficient grounds for excluding
`
`his testimony. Additionally, the Board should deny the motion because the
`
`exhibits at issue are properly relied on by Patent Owner and Dr. Ehsani, and/or are
`
`simply demonstrative exhibits. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner's alleged material
`
`facts and addresses them below.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. DR. EHSANI USED CORRECT LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN
`FORMING HIS OPINION AND PREPARING HIS DECLARATION
`
`a. Dr. Ehsani did not prepare his Declaration with the incorrect
`understanding that the patent is presumed valid and requires clear and
`convincing evidence to invalidate
`
`Mischaracterizing Dr. Ehsani's deposition testimony, Petitioner alleges that
`
`Dr. Ehsani's opinion is legally flawed because the opinion is based on his
`
`allegedly incorrect understanding that the patent at issue must be invalidated by
`
`clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding. Paper 25 at 6. In the cited
`
`testimony, however, Dr. Ehsani merely explained his thorough understanding of
`
`the examination process employed by the U.S. Patent Office in issuing patents.
`
`Dr. Ehsani presumed that the patent examiner did a thorough job when the patent
`
`issued as his testimony indicates: "the U.S. examiner will also independently,
`
`through his own resources and expertise, bring to bear other prior art, and that
`
`going through that exercise, which is rather rigorous, produces a fairly substantial
`
`prosecution history and -- and record and most often modification and -- and
`
`settlement on -- on specific claims -- claims. Through that laborious process, the
`
`patent is finally issued[.]" Ex. 1024 at 3 (212:4-12). Petitioner conveniently
`
`omitted this background testimony appearing on the same transcript page as the
`
`portions it cites to.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`Dr. Ehsani was neither clearly asked, nor did he clearly testify, that his
`
`opinion in his Declaration is based on his understanding that the patent at issue
`
`must be invalidated by clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding. In fact,
`
`Dr. Ehsani was never asked anything about the burden of proof in this proceeding.
`
`While Petitioner complains that Dr. Ehsani did not mention anything in his
`
`Declaration about the presumption of validity and burdens in this proceeding, nor
`
`did Petitioner's expert, Dr. Hamid A. Toliyat. It is noteworthy that Dr. Ehsani
`
`reviewed Petitioner's corrected petitions and expert declarations (see Ex. 2001 at ¶
`
`15, pp. 10-13); accordingly, Dr. Ehsani considered the correct burden of proof and
`
`legal standards to the extent they were correctly stated by Petitioner and/or its
`
`expert witnesses. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Dr. Ehsani's testimony is
`
`unreliable because it is based on misapplication of legal principles is a blatant
`
`mischaracterization of Dr. Ehsani's testimony and Dr. Ehsani's Declaration, which
`
`fully satisfies the requirements of FRE 702 and is therefore admissible.
`
`b. Dr. Ehsani formed his opinion and prepared his Declaration with the
`correct claim interpretation understanding
`
`
`
`Petitioner further alleges that Dr. Ehsani's Declaration should be excluded
`
`because he incorrectly interpreted the claims by confining them to the preferred
`
`embodiment. Paper 25 at 8. In support, Petitioner cites Dr. Ehsani's deposition
`
`testimony taken out of context and then exaggerates and mischaracterizes it. The
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`cited testimony was preceded by an extended colloquy about matter not at issue in
`
`this IPR: whether Claim 1 of the '612 Patent can be practiced using parameters
`
`other than current and pulse period mentioned in the '612 Patent. While irrelevant
`
`to this IPR, Patent Owner addresses Petitioner's allegation below for
`
`completeness.
`
`As evidenced by the emphasized portions of the testimony excerpted below,
`
`Dr. Ehsani repeatedly indicated that the parameters at issue are not limited to
`
`current and pulse period mentioned in the alleged preferred embodiment.
`
`Q. (BY MR. SANDERS) I'm not asking you about – I don't know
`
`whether it's in your report. I don't care. I'm just entitled to ask you a
`
`question and find out what assumptions you applied for your
`
`analysis. So I'll ask it one more time. For the purpose of your analysis
`
`for reaching the opinions you've set forth in these proceedings, did
`
`you believe it was necessary for an apparatus to use the parameters
`
`current and pulse period in order to satisfy Claim 1 of the '612
`
`patent?
`
`MR. KESKAR: Same objection, answer requires speculation.
`
`A. I don't know if it's necessary. I know that it's sufficient.
`
`Ex. 1023 at 15 (56:4-17) (emphasis added).
`
`Q. (BY MR. SANDERS) From your perspective, as someone who
`
`has been hired to offer technical expertise in this matter, are there
`
`other parameters besides current and pulse period that an apparatus
`
`could use and satisfy Claim 1 of the '612 patent?
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`A. As an expert, I can tell you that it is possible, not as a hired
`
`person, but as an expert.
`
`Id. at 15 (56:20-57:1) (emphasis added).
`
`Q. And when you say, "these are the two parameters that are the
`
`subject of the invention," which parameters are you referring to?
`
`A. Speed and torque, and all other detectable variables that are
`
`indicative of, you know, those in a one-to-one manner.
`
`Id. at 16 (59:23-60:3) (emphasis added).
`
`Q. In your view of the invention of the '612 patent are directed to an
`
`obstacle detection methods that use some parameters that have one-
`
`to-one linkage to speed and to torque, correct?
`
`A. Well, as I recall, it says two parameters and we are -- the preferred
`
`embodiment that narrows down. I'm not a lawyer to understand
`
`interpretation outside of the preferred embodiment by the patent. I
`
`have analyzed the preferred embodiment.
`
`Q. So you --
`
`A. I cannot tell if the patent can be interpreted more broadly than
`
`that.
`
`Id. at 17 (64:3-14) (emphasis added).
`
`Significantly, Petitioner ignores Dr. Ehsani's prior testimony cited above,
`
`where he repeatedly testified that while the alleged preferred embodiment of the
`
`'612 Patent included parameters current and pulse period, these parameters are not
`
`necessary but only sufficient and that the claim at issue could encompass all other
`
`parameters indicative of speed and torque in one-to-one manner. Instead,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`Petitioner deliberately cites only the concluding portion of the colloquy and
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Ehsani's last three sentences and misstates them as "his
`
`testimony that he failed to heed the Federal Circuit's warning against confining the
`
`claims to the preferred embodiment," which is simply not Dr. Ehsani's testimony.
`
`Paper 25 at 8. Rather, Dr. Ehsani merely stated, after being repeatedly badgered,
`
`that "I cannot tell if the patent can be interpreted more broadly than that" since he
`
`is a technical expert and "not a lawyer" (see Ex. 1023 at 17 (64:9)). This is not the
`
`same as testifying that "the patent cannot be interpreted more broadly than that,"
`
`particularly in light of his earlier contrary testimony, which Petitioner
`
`surreptitiously chooses to ignore. Indeed, Petitioner disregards Dr. Ehsani's
`
`statement immediately preceding the cited testimony: "Well, as I recall, [the '612
`
`patent] says two parameters and . . . the preferred embodiment that narrows
`
`down[,]"(see Id. at 17 (64:7-8)) which further demonstrates Dr. Ehsani's correct
`
`understanding that the two parameters in the claim at issue are broader than the
`
`alleged preferred embodiment.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Dr. Ehsani's testimony about what the
`
`patent claims require in interpreting them and applying the prior art to them is the
`
`product of his legally erroneous method of confining them to the preferred
`
`embodiment is contrary to Dr. Ehsani's complete testimony, and Dr. Ehsani's
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`Declaration is therefore reliable and should not be excluded based on his
`
`statements taken out of context by Petitioner.
`
`c. Dr. Ehsani did not construe claims contrary to their structure
`
`
`
`This allegation is entirely irrelevant to this IPR since it is based on
`
`mischaracterized testimony of Dr. Ehsani regarding Claim 1 of the '612 Patent,
`
`which is not at issue in this IPR. Paper 25 at 9-10. Patent Owner nonetheless
`
`addresses the allegation below for completeness.
`
`Petitioner cites Dr. Ehsani's testimony taken out of context and alleges that
`
`Dr. Ehsani does not understand the structure of claims. Id. By distorting Dr.
`
`Ehsani's testimony, Petitioner indignantly ridicules Dr. Ehsani's expertise. The
`
`colloquy excerpted below that preceded the cited testimony included many
`
`questions regarding the meanings of "sensing a collision" in clause d) and
`
`"identifying a collision" in sub-clause d) iii) of Claim 1 of the '612 Patent. In
`
`particular, note the following exchange:
`
`Q. Now, identifying a collision of the window or panel with an
`
`obstacle due to a change in the signal from a sensor, is part of how
`
`the controller goes about sensing a collision with an obstruction when
`
`power is applied to the controller or step D, correct?
`
`A. I don't know if I agree with that characterization.
`
`Ex. 1023 at 12 (44:17-23).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`Q. (BY MR. SANDERS) Dr. Ehsani, do you agree that the
`
`identifying step of D3 of Claim 1 of the '612 patent is a substep of
`
`step D?
`
`A. Are you talking about the legal point of view or from -- from the
`
`pagination point of view?
`
`Q. Dr. Ehsani, I'm asking you in the expert opinion that you've
`
`applied for purposes of your analysis in these proceedings, do you
`
`agree that step D3 is a substep of step D of Claim 1 of the '612
`
`patent?
`
`A. No, sir, I don't agree with that.
`
`Id. at 13 (46:3-12).
`
`Clearly, Dr. Ehsani, who is highly educated, understands the formatting
`
`used in the claims; and in stating "No, sir, I don't agree with that," he was simply
`
`reiterating his earlier testimony that "sensing a collision" in step d) is distinct from
`
`"identifying a collision" in substep d) iii) and pointing out the ambiguity raised in
`
`Petitioner's line of questioning. Therefore, Petitioner's allegation that Dr. Ehsani
`
`construed the claims contrary to their structure and therefore his Declaration
`
`should be excluded as unreliable is ludicrous.
`
`In sum, Dr. Ehsani did not apply incorrect legal principles in preparing his
`
`Declaration, and therefore his Declaration should not be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`2. DR. EHSANI FULLY ANSWERED THE DEPOSITION
`QUESTIONS; PETITIONER SIMPLY DID NOT LIKE THE
`ANSWERS
`
`This allegation is also irrelevant to this IPR since it relies on Dr. Ehsani's
`
`testimony elicited specifically for the '612 and '037 patents, which are not at issue
`
`in this IPR. Paper 25 at 10-15. Patent Owner nonetheless addresses the allegation
`
`below for completeness.
`
`Petitioner has incorrectly alleged that Dr. Ehsani "resisted answering basic
`
`questions," that he "appeared concerned about making admissions that might not
`
`be helpful to Patent Owner’s positions and avoided providing an answer," that he
`
`was "acting as an advocate rather than an expert," and that his testimony will not
`
`help trier of fact. Id. at 10. These are Petitioner's mere subjective opinions and
`
`form no legal basis for excluding Dr. Ehsani's Declaration.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner does not explain why Dr. Ehsani's voluminous
`
`testimony over two full days and three declarations will in fact not help the trier of
`
`fact. The deposition transcript covers nearly 430 pages of testimony. Ex. 1024 at
`
`88. This is hardly unresponsive. Many of Petitioner's questions were unclear to the
`
`witness, were argumentative and repetitive, and involved levels of technical detail
`
`that required lengthy rather than the succinct "sound bite" answers Petitioner
`
`desired. This is evident from a full reading of the transcript rather than from a few
`
`insignificant excerpts cited by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`Further, Dr. Ehsani formed his opinions after considering and analyzing
`
`broad-based evidence including cited art, prosecution history, and testimony of
`
`various alleged experts from Petitioner's as well as other related proceedings. Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 15, pp. 10-13. Dr. Ehsani's well-founded and well-formed opinions
`
`therefore cannot be mischaracterized as mere advocacy, particularly since he
`
`unequivocally testified that he answered questions without bias "not as a hired
`
`person, but as an expert." Ex. 1023 at 15 (57:1).
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Ehsani's Declaration should not be excluded for the
`
`alleged failure to answer questions to Petitioner's subjection satisfaction.
`
`3. PATENT OWNER DID NOT FILE INADMISSIBLE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Dr. Ehsani has stated in his Declaration that he relied on Exhibits 2004,
`
`2005, 2007, and 2008 in forming his opinion. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 15, pp. 10-13. Exhibit
`
`2004 includes the deposition transcript of Petitioner's alleged expert Dr. Borrelli
`
`from Petitioner's related IPR 2014-649 for the '037 patent. Exhibit 2005 includes
`
`the Declaration of Petitioner's alleged expert Dr. Toliyat, filed in Petitioner's
`
`related IPR 2014-00648 for the '612 patent. Exhibits 2007 and 2008 include
`
`Declarations of alleged expert witness Dr. MacCarley, filed in the related Brose
`
`IPR's 2014-00416 and 2014-00417 for the same '612 and '802 patents that are at
`
`issue in Petitioner's IPR's.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`FRE 703 states: "An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case
`
`that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the
`
`particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an
`
`opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.
`
`But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the
`
`opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the
`
`jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect."
`
`FRE 703 specifically allows experts like Dr. Ehsani to rely on opinions of
`
`other experts such as Drs. Borrelli, Toliyat, and MacCarley. See, e.g., Ferrara &
`
`DiMercurio v. St. Paul Mercury, 240 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2001) (expert fire
`
`analyst could be expected to examine another (now deceased) expert's report, as
`
`well as fire department report, in the course of forming his own opinion on cause
`
`and origin of fire in question); and U.S. v. 1014.16 Acres of Land, 558 F. Supp.
`
`1238, 1242 (W.D. Mo. 1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1984) (expert allowed
`
`to rely on, among other things, opinions of other experts). Therefore, Dr. Ehsani
`
`properly relied on expert testimony of Drs. Borrelli, Toliyat, and MacCarley
`
`included in Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008; and these exhibits are
`
`admissible under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2009 includes U.S. Patent 3,888,047 to Chikaraishi discussed in Dr.
`
`Borrelli's deposition, Ex. 2004, on which Dr. Ehsani relied. Ex. 2032 provides an
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`errata sheet for the deposition transcript of Dr. Borrelli, Ex. 2004, on which Dr.
`
`Ehsani properly relied for completeness. Therefore, Exhibits 2009 and 2032 were
`
`also properly filed and are admissible since Dr. Ehsani properly relied on them in
`
`forming his opinion and in preparing his Declaration.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner relied on Exhibits 2013 and 2014 and explained
`
`their relevance in its response. Paper 20 at 1. Therefore, these exhibits, being
`
`relevant under FRE 401, were properly relied on and are admissible.
`
`Exhibit 2018 is merely a demonstrative exhibit that accurately summarizes
`
`on a single sheet numerous unpatentability grounds Petitioner alleged in three
`
`IPR's for which the Board has instituted trial. Since FRE 1006 allows use of
`
`summaries and 37 CFR § 42.70 allows use of demonstrative exhibits at oral
`
`argument, Patent Owner properly filed Exhibit 2018 well in advance to avoid
`
`undue surprises later and to aid all concerned in these proceedings. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit 2018 is admissible as a demonstrative exhibit.
`
`Exhibit 2033 is also a demonstrative exhibit that summarizes Patent
`
`Owner's claim constructions in this IPR and that Patent Owner properly filed well
`
`in advance pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.70 to avoid undue surprises later and to aid
`
`all concerned in this proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2033 is also admissible as a
`
`demonstrative exhibit.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that Exhibit 2008 is inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit 2008 is
`
`the declaration of alleged expert witness Dr. MacCarley, filed in the related Brose
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`IPR 2014-00417 for the same '802 patent that is at issue in this IPR. FRE 703
`
`expressly allows experts to rely on opinions of other experts, and therefore Dr.
`
`Ehsani properly relied on Dr. MacCarley's declaration under FRE 703. Further,
`
`under FRE 401, Dr. MacCarley's declaration, being for the same '802 Patent at
`
`issue in this IPR, is highly relevant to resolve some of the vigorously disputed
`
`issues in this IPR for which it is considered.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner properly relied on Exhibit 2008 under FRE 401
`
`as just explained and under FRE 807 since Dr. MacCarley's testimony has
`
`equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness (filed under oath in a
`
`related IPR proceeding against Patent Owner's interests); is offered as evidence of
`
`a material fact (at least the forty millisecond issue); is more probative on the point
`
`for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain
`
`through reasonable efforts (otherwise Patent Owner would not offer it; Petitioner's
`
`expert Dr. Toliyat's testimony was insufficient, incomplete, inconclusive,
`
`incorrect (e.g., insisting that derivative of speed relative to distance is
`
`acceleration), and evasive on these and many other points); and admitting it will
`
`best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice (advances the
`
`Board's goal of making all relevant evidence of record and publicly available).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioner was served and notified of the filing of this exhibit, and
`
`yet Petitioner never attempted or requested to depose Dr. MacCarley. Therefore,
`
`Petitioner cannot now allege that admitting Exhibit 2008 unfairly prejudices it,
`
`and Exhibit 2008 is therefore admissible.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2007-2009, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2032, and
`
`2033 were properly filed and are admissible, and Petitioner's motion to exclude
`
`these exhibits should be denied.
`
`In sum, Petitioner's motion to exclude the Declaration of Dr. Ehsani should
`
`be denied because Dr. Ehsani did not prepare his Declaration using incorrect legal
`
`standards and claim construction methods, and Dr. Ehsani did not resist answering
`
`questions as Petitioner alleges. Additionally, the Board should deny the motion to
`
`exclude the challenged exhibits because these exhibits are properly relied on by
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Ehsani and are admissible under FRE 401, 702, 703, 807,
`
`1006, and 37 CFR § 42.70.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`4. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board should deny Petitioner's motion to exclude the opinion
`
`testimony of Dr. Ehsani and the exhibits at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Hemant M. Keskar/
`
`By:
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`Monte L. Falcoff (Reg. No. 37,617)
`Hemant M. Keskar (Reg. No. 61,776)
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`(248) 641-1600
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`
`hkeskar@hdp.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`A copy of this Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Exclude
`
`The Opinion Testimony of Dr. Mark Ehsani and Inadmissible Exhibits has been
`
`served to counsel for the Petitioner at the following electronic mail addresses,
`
`pursuant to consent of Petitioner, on this 5th day of June, 2015.
`
`
`
`Charles H. Sanders (Reg. No. 47,053) Timothy J. Rousseau (Reg. No. 59,454)
`csanders@goodwinprocter.com trousseau@goodwinprocter.com
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
` GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`Exchange Place
`
`
`
` The New York Times Building
`53 State Street
`
`
`
` 620 Eighth Avenue
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
` New York, New York 10018
`Telephone: (617) 570-1315
` Telephone: (212) 813-8000
`Fax: (617) 801-8804
`
`
` Fax: (212) 355-3333
`
`Phong T. Dinh (Reg. No. 67,475)
`(pdinh@goodwinprocter.com)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue., NW
`Washington, D.C. 22201
`Telephone: (202) 346-4320
`Fax: (202) 346-4444
`Attorneys of Record for Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Hemant M. Keskar/
`
`
`
`
`
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Monte L. Falcoff (Reg. No. 37,617)
`
`
`
`
`
`Hemant M. Keskar (Reg. No. 61,776)
`
`
`
`
`
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`
`
`
`
`
`Troy, MI 48098
`
`
`
`
`
`(248) 641-1600
`
`
`
`
`
`(248) 641-0270 Fax
`
`
`
`
`
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`hkeskar@hdp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`