`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2018
`EXHIBIT 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`IIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014—00788
`
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`DECLARATION OF W. EDWARD RAMAGE
`
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014-00788
`
`Page I
`
`N WEI? 15W135 VI
`393w] SJIL'II.}ir'I,I HG”! |."2(J[5
`
`
`
`1, W. Edward Ramage, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am lead counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the above-
`
`identified IPR proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`On March 26, 2015,
`
`I
`
`took the deposition of Mr. Suetens.
`
`The
`
`transcript ofhis deposition testimony has been filed as Exhibit 2016.
`
`3.
`
`Based upon Mr. Suetens' deposition testimony, on April 2, 2015,
`
`I
`
`filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper No. 18). The motion sought to exclude
`
`
`the Declaration of Johan Suetens and attachments (Ex. 1022) and the AGFA
`
`Apogee: The PDF-based Production System brochure (“Apogee”) (filed as Ex.
`
`1007 and as Attachment A to Ex. 1022).
`
`4.
`
`On April 16, 2015,
`
`I received a communication from counsel for
`
`Petitioners with copies of a Supplemental Declaration of Johan Suetens and a
`
`Declaration of Michael Jahn, which Petitioners proposed to submit as supplemental
`
`evidence.
`
`5.
`
`On April 20, 2015, I served my written objections to the Supplemental
`
`Declaration of Johan Suetens and a Declaration ofMichael Jahn (a true and correct
`
`copy of my written objections is attached hereto as Attachment A).
`
`In my
`
`objections,
`
`I specifically pointed out that the declarations did not appear to be
`
`Eastman Kodak V. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014-00788
`
`Page 2
`
`N WI—iR 1519185 v1
`2021:0111-1101'1—103 Lit-£1 I on] i
`
`
`
`supplemental
`
`evidence,
`
`as
`
`claimed by Petitioners, but
`
`instead comprised
`
`supplemental information.
`
`6.
`
`I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge.
`
`If called to
`
`testify as to the truth of the matter stated herein,
`
`I could and would testify
`
`competently.
`
`7.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that
`
`the foregoing is true and
`
`correct.
`
`Executed this i day of June, 2015, at Nashville, TN.
`
`M. Edward Ramage
`
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014—00788
`
`Page 3
`
`N WliR E519ISS VI
`ZUIMHX-I'lfllJ-MIE Ufa-’1 [IEUIS
`
`
`
`BAKER DUNELhUR (Ll-INTER
`SLIITI: 300
`Ill COMMERCE STREET
`N:\:'~i-I\"lLLL TERNESSEI: 37201
`mum's: 915.723.5th
`this: Manson's
`Md l L] iii-i _-.'.'t 9. [91.335.35.-
`I' 0. BOX 190013
`i\:\51'l\"ll.L.E. thXtSStt Silly!
`
`www.bakcrtlonelsonrom
`
`DONELSON
`BEARMAN, CALDWELL
`8L BERKO‘NITZ. PC
`
`W. EDWARD RAMAGE
`Direct Dial: (ISIS) TEo—STTI
`Direct Fax: (cm 744-5771
`E-Mail Address: eranutgetfi‘rlnikerdonelsunxom
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Michael L. Kiklis
`
`Oblon, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria. VA 22314
`
`April 20, 2015
`
`Via Email and US. Mail
`
`RE:
`
`
`Eastman Kodak Ca. et‘ al. v. CTP Innovations LLC: IPR Nos. 20l4—788 20i4-789
`
`20l4-790 and2014-791
`
`Messrs. McKeown and Kiklis:
`
`[t is unclear, however, whether the
`We have received your communication of April 16, 2015.
`response is intended to be a response to Patent Owner‘s Motions to Exclude or to Patent Owner‘s
`Responses, both of which were filed in each proceeding on April 2, 2015. As a preliminary matter, we
`note that Petitioners' characterization of either of these filings as an “Objection to Evidence” is
`inaccurate and procedurally impermissible.
`
`If the response is intended to be a response to the Motions to Exclude, it is improper. The two
`declarations (including a third declaration as an exhibit
`to one of those declarations)
`in your
`communications purport to comprise “supplemental
`information.”
`In truth, Petitioners are actually
`attempting to introduce entirely new evidence. including, but not
`limited to. entirely new art. Such
`introduction in either a response to a motion to exclude or a reply to a response is not permitted by any
`rule or precedent of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Moreover. Petitioners are attempting
`to introduce this new evidence (notwithstanding its inadmissibility on other grounds) after Patent Owner
`submitted its responses and after discovery has closed. Not only is the submission of new evidence in
`the manner attempted by Petitioners a violation of PTAB rules and orders in all of the pending
`proceedings, such submissions are a fundamental attempt to deny Patent Owner its due process rights.
`
`The rules do not permit ad seriatim introductions of new evidence, which is exactly what you are
`attempting to do here. PTAB’s rules are very clear that you must present your evidence up front at the
`time of filing of a petition. Petitioners had ample time and opportunity to include these declarations and
`other evidence in support of the petitions, and that time has passed. Accordingly.
`to the extent that
`Petitioners may attempt
`to file the declarations and attachments as supplemental
`information or
`evidence, we will oppose their introduction, and will move to strike, exclude or expunge, as appropriate.
`
`.-\l.,-\E!A,\l.n\
`
`- ortinma - LOUISIANA - MISSISSIPPI
`
`.
`
`llENNESSEt—i
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`. W.—\Stll-NGIDN,DfiRjOI‘LDGZ-ygg
`Page 4
`
`
`
`April 20. 205
`Page 2
`
`In addition to failing to be compliant with the rules and due process rights, Petitioners
`“supplemental information". including new Suetens and Jahn Declarations and all exhibits thereto, also
`are l‘acially defective for at least the following evidentiary reasons:
`
`information, Suetens’ Supplemental
`In addition to comprising improper supplemental
`1.
`Declaration fails to solve the evidentiary issues created by his contradictory declaration testimony.
`declaration exhibits, and deposition testimony. First, Ms. Suetens states that he has been educated by
`other Agfa personnel whom he relies on. Mr. Suetens, therefore, lacks knowledge as is required by Rule
`602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Moreover. his statements and those that he attempts to introduce
`from others are hearsay under Rule 80] and not subject to any exception to hearsay. Therefore, such
`statements violated Rule 802. Furthermore, Mr. Suetens has not solved the authentication issues with
`
`regard to the Apogee reference - namely, that it was disseminated or otherwise made publicly available.
`Finally. paragraphs 3715 are irrelevant to establishing a prior art printed publication date, and thus are
`inadmissible under Rule 401. Mr. Suetens’ additional exhibits to his Supplemental Declaration suffer
`the same flaws.
`
`in additional to comprising improper supplemental information, the Jahn Declaration contains
`2.
`statements - particularly paragraphs 8-28- that constitute hearsay or are wholly irrelevant to establishing
`a prior art printed publication date for the Apogee reference submitted to PTAB. The exhibits to the
`Jahn Declaration are likewise wholly irrelevant, demonstrate a lack of personal knowledge, and
`constitute hearsay. Therefore, the Jahn declaration and the exhibits thereto are not admissible under
`Fed. R. Evid. 40] . 602, and 802.
`
`Accordingly, although it is unnecessary and not required under the rules for Patent Owner to
`object to the supplemental declarations and statements made therein and exhibits thereto (including
`without
`limitation exhibits that are declarations that have exhibits), Patent Owner objects to the
`introduction of the aforementioned declarations and exhibits and will
`immediately move to strike,
`exclude, andfor expunge such declarations and exhibits and any other document filed with PTAB that so
`references those declarations or exhibits.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`is} W. Edward Ramage
`
`W. Edward Ramage
`
`cc:
`
`CTP Innovations, LLC
`Samuel F. Miller
`
`L. Clint Crosby
`
`CTP Exhibit 20l 8
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`iPR 2014-00788
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on June 11, 2015,
`
`the foregoing
`
`Declaration (including attachments thereto) was served in its entirety via U.S.
`
`Express Mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`
`OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP.
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Tel: (703) 412-6297
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`Email: cpdocketmckeown@oblon.c0m
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`/W. Edward Ramage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`
`Eastman Kodak V. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014-00788
`
`Page 6
`
`N WER 1519185 vl
`202ml] 3-1111071113 “(\f] I “211] 5
`
`