IIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE. PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION,
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDEL-BERG, USA
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00789
`
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`DECLARATION OF W. EDWARD RAMAGE
`
`Eastman Kodak V. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014-00789
`
`Page 1
`
`N WI-TR I5 [9335 V]
`3‘.4'.1F_»lJI5-I-[}Ul']-4[J3 Ufafl If.‘-_U]:'\
`
`

`

`I, 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.
`
`7
`
`On March 26, 2015,
`
`1 took the deposition of Mr. Suetens.
`
`The
`
`transcript of his deposition testimony has been filed as Exhibit 2016.
`
`3.
`
`Based upon Mr. Suetens‘ deposition testimony, on April 2, 2015,
`
`1
`
`tiled 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 of Michael 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 2014-00789
`
`Page 2
`
`N \'L-"l':R 1519235 vl
`luiratnl X-I1m'J.1r,J_3
`rln.-'1 l-'1I_1[5
`
`

`

`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
`
`C-0l‘I'EClI .
`
`Executed this LL day of June, 2015, at Nashville, TN.
`
`W. E ward Ramage
`
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`IPR 2014-00789
`
`Page 3
`
`N WI.-IR l5|‘)'.135 \-‘I
`2"J3t>llll<«|"Jl_1t}=H'J3 Ilifa.-"I I.-"ITJIS
`
`

`

`ll.:\KER D0:'\'}_"L_\'OI\' CE.'\'I'liR
`SLHTE H00
`."sl'Ri.'CE:"|'
`211 CE"}.\1!\.*1l:|{t'f|:
`XA5H\-‘ILL!-..1kNNE5:%H:'3?.E0l
`l’J‘iUf\'|f
`frl 5.i'2I) 5600
`I=.-xx; n15.?£o.u-in-I
`!*_t-_‘\l1_-_l_=\J':__=_\_D_E'_EE£-
`l‘.L). H-UH [Q0033
`N:\>iH\'|I.l.L'. 11"?V:*£|.‘S:1'l_‘L 3321“
`
`tvww_bititcrI;l.unclsun.cmn
`
`3; BERKQVVITZ’ pc
`
`W. I-Io\\'ARD RA.-VIAGE
`Direct Dial: tfalfi) ‘E26-STII
`Direct Fax: {6I5} “a'44—5??1
`[C-Mail Address: r.‘1'}'II1'lagI.!@ bakcrdoneison.cont
`
`Scott A. McKcown
`Michael L. Kiklis
`
`Oblon. LLP
`[940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`April 20, 2015
`
`Via Email and US. Mail
`
`RE:
`
`East'm.an. Kodak Co., er al. v. CTP Innovations, LLC: [PR Nos. 2014-788, 2014-789,
`2014-790 and 2014-79!
`
`Messrs. McKeown and Kiklis:
`
`It is unclear, however, whether the
`We have received your communication of April I6, 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 erttirefy 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.
`
`M.-\L:..\-.w:.v\
`
`- GEORGI.-’\
`
`-
`
`1_t"!l.‘[SiAN:\
`
`-
`
`.'v1t‘_i.'S[.*.'~'StP[-‘E
`
`-
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`CTP Exhibit 2918
`Eastman Kodak v. C IT’ Innovations
`TFNNESSEE - WAS!-il.’\|(_i'1't3[-.‘,1)fi,R2014__0D789
`Page 4
`
`

`

`April 20, 2015
`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 facially 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 301 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 3-15 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 Iahn declaration and the exhibits thereto are not admissible under
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 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 2018
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`IPR 2014-00789
`
`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. 1VIcKeown
`
`OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
`
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP.
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Tel: (703) 412-6297
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`Email: cpdoc1<etmckeown@oblon.com
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`/W. Edward Rarnage/
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`CTP Exhibit 2018
`
`[PR 2014-00789
`
`Page 6
`
`N WICR l5|‘;l235 \-'l
`1‘.-'|3{sl}| N—lJ|..|t'l—1tJ3 Uta-’|
`
`l.-"EH15
`
`