lIN 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—00791
`
`Patent 6,611,349
`
`DECLARATION OF W. EDWARD RAMAGE
`
`2019
`CTP Exhibit 2019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`IPR 2014—00791
`
`Page 1
`
`N WEIR I51924o vi
`lamination-uni em-‘I 1,9,“ 5
`
`

`

`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-
`
`identiiied 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. 23). The motion sought to exclude
`
`the Declaration of Johan Suetens and attachments (Ex. 1023) and the m
`
`Apogee: The PDF—based Production System brochure (“Apogee”) (filed as Ex.
`
`1008 and as Attachment A to Ex. 1023).
`
`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
`
`cepy 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
`
`2019
`CTP Exhibit 2019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`IPR 2014-00791
`
`Page 2
`
`N Wl-LR 1519240 vl
`292ml I s—uun-tm I'llhsl
`
`IFS-{LIES
`
`

`

`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 fl day of June, 2015, at Nashville, TN.
`
`W \l
`
`I
`
`W. Edward Ramage
`
`2019
`CTP Exhibit 2019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`IPR 2014—00791
`
`Page 3
`
`N WliR IS [9240 \‘l
`3930(ll8‘trtlfl-‘103 Uhfl i-‘EDli
`
`

`

`BAKER DUNE-ILSON CENTER
`SUITE 800
`2 I
`I COMMERCE S'l'RFET
`!\:\Sl1\"ELLE.'I'kNNtSSEE 37.7.01
`E‘l-ltfiht' M5 rausnoo
`Fax: “snap-m
`Millin-l-‘LG MLDJEE”
`I’.O. BOX 1906i}
`NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE Elli?)
`
`www.hakerdonuisuurum
`
`DONELSON
`BEARJ‘VlAN, C‘ALDVVEII,
`8c. BERKOWITZ. PC
`
`W. EDwaRD RAMAGE
`Direct Dial: rats) 725-. "a"?!
`Direct Fax: (MS) T445?“
`B-Mail Address: cmmage@hakerdonclsoucom
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Michael L. Kikiis
`
`Oblon, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`April 20. 2015
`
`Via Email and US. Mail
`
`RE:
`
`Eastman Kodak Co, et (11. v. CTP Innovations, LLC: [PR Nos. 2014-788, 2014-789,
`2014-790 and 20(4-791
`
`Messrs. McKeown and Kiklis:
`
`It 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.
`
`ALABAMA - GEORGIA . 1.0L.||S[,\N,\
`
`.
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`ATTACHMENT A
`_
`5115535531119;
`
`,
`
`|'|_-'i\';\]|_-j~55FE
`
`2019
`CT? Exhibi12019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTF Innovations
`\NASEIING'J'ON, DTT’R 2014-0079]
`Page 4
`
`o
`
`

`

`April 20. 20 I 5
`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 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 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 softer
`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. 401. 602. and 802.
`
`is unnecessary and not required under the rules for Patent Owner to
`Accordingly, although it
`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, Ell'lCUOI' expunge such declarations and exhibits and any other document filed with PTAB that so
`references those declarations or exhibits.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`{sf W. Edward Ramage
`
`W. Edward Ramage
`
`cc:
`
`CTP Innovations. LLC
`Samuel F. Miller
`
`L. Clint Crosby
`
`2019
`C’I‘P Exhibit 2019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`[PR 2014—00791
`
`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 US.
`
`Express Mail, postage prepaid, and electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Scott A. MeKeown
`
`OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP.
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 14
`Tel: (703) 412—6297
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`Email: cpdocketmckeown@obl011.com
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`IW. Edward Rama e/
`
`W. Edward Ramage, Reg. No. 50,810
`
`2019
`CTP Exhibit 2019
`Eastman Kodak v. CTP Innovations
`
`IPR 2014-00791
`
`Page 6
`
`N W'liR 1519240 v1
`EUEMHX‘EIIHJ-IEH [11.5"] [52015
`
`