`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: July 23, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`EASTMAN KODAK CO., AGFA CORP.,
`
`ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789
`Patent 6,738,155
`
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791
`Patent 6,611,349
`
`Technology Center 2600
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Tuesday, June 30, 2015
`
`Before: HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD,
`and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 30,
`2015, at 1:00 p.m., in Hearing Room D, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`SCOTT A. McKEOWN, ESQ.
`CHRISTOPHER RICCIUTI, ESQ.
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`703-413-3000
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. EDWARD RAMAGE, ESQ.
`Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, PC
`Baker Donelson Center, Suite 800
`211 Commerce Street
`Nashville, Tennessee 37201
`615-726-5771
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`(1 : 00 p. m.)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Please be seated. Good
`
`afternoon , ever yo ne. This is the co nsolid ated hearing in
`
`IPR2014 -00788 and 789 . Those two involve U.S. Pa tent
`
`6 ,738 ,155 . And cases IPR2014 -00790 and 791 . And thos e
`
`involve Patent 6 , 611 ,349 .
`
`Let me ask counsel to pl ease begin by introducing
`
`the mselves. We will start with the Patent Own er, pl eas e.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Edward Ra mage with Baker
`
`Donelson . I r ep resent the Patent Owner.
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: Scott Mc Keown and Chris
`
`Ricciut i for Petition ers, Kodak, AGFA, ESKO and Heidelberg.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Thank you very much.
`
`Welco me to the Patent Trial and App eal Board.
`
`Today each side will have 90 minu tes of total
`
`argu ment t ime. And we will begin with the Petition er b ecause
`
`he has the burden to present his c ase, so he will present his
`
`case with respect to the challenged claims on the bas is on
`
`which we instituted trial. After that the Patent Owner will
`
`argue i ts opposition to the Petitioner's case.
`
`The Patent Owner also has, I think, presented some
`
`motions to exclude. And since the bu rden of persuas ion is on
`
`the Patent Owner there, as to i ts m o tions , he will argue thos e
`
`at that t ime.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`The Petition er may then use any t ime i t reserved to
`
`rebut the Patent Owne r's opposition and oppos e the motion s to
`
`exclude. And we will conclude with the Patent Own er's
`
`rebuttal to the opposition to the motions t o exclude.
`
`One other thing as a preli minar y matter, I note that
`
`neither side has filed any de monstratives in this case, so none
`
`will be pe r mitted at this hearing.
`
`If a party does display a docu ment or a part of a
`
`docu ment that is of record , the part y m ust identif y where in
`
`the pleadings, the pleadin g and the page nu mber , that
`
`displayed docu me nt is cited, otherwise you will be asked to
`
`remove any docu ments displa yed.
`
`Is ever ybod y ready to proceed? Okay.
`
`We will begin with the Petitioner. And would you
`
`l ike me to alert you as to any t ime?
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: I don't think that's necessar y,
`
`Your Honor, but thank you.
`
`Good afternoon , Your Honors. As you mentioned,
`
`this is a consolidated hearing ac ross four different
`
`proceedings , two of which are directe d to each patent. I' m
`
`unlikely to take the full 90 minute s but I will reserv e whatever
`
`I don't use in this brief introduction as rebuttal so I will
`
`probably go about 15 or 20 minutes here.
`
`I know the Board has read the briefs, and judgin g
`
`from the insti tutio n order understand s the issues well so I will
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`get right to the i mportant issu es. Both the '349 and '155
`
`patents are directed to pre -press work flow. And as the Board
`
`is aware, what that is, is ever ything that happens up unti l
`
`press, which is up unti l printing .
`
`So i t is color correction . It is proo fing. It is all of
`
`the thing s that you would do and position OPI to a docu ment
`
`in order to get i t ready to be printed.
`
`The '155 and the ' 349 patent, what they present as
`
`the inventio n is the sort of au to ma ting of what are essenti ally
`
`all well -known p re -press processes, whether i t is t yp esetting,
`
`et ceter a. So what we are talking a bout here is an as se mbl y of
`
`known processes that are interconnected via net work .
`
`Specificall y claims 10 throug h 20 of the '155 are
`
`directed towards accessing images at a server , that aspect of a
`
`pre-press process . There is some c o rrespondin g apparatus
`
`claims that prese nt si milar features but in a pre -pre ss
`
`architecture.
`
`'349 si milarl y has method and apparatus claims
`
`where the method claims are generall y talking about image
`
`manipulation , whereas apparatus claims 1 through 3 get to the
`
`architecture.
`
`So we have two main grounds in both of these
`
`patents, references common to both of these patents, and that's
`
`the Jebens plus the Apogee reference, and the Dorf man plus
`
`Apogee, and there are a couple other r eferences that are mixed
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`in there for some of the dependent clai ms , but these get two
`
`features, such as imposition and OPI which are, frankl y,
`
`ad mitted in the specification as well kno wn.
`
`So I' m going to talk pri ma ril y about Jebens and
`
`Apogee and Dorfman and Apog ee as that's sort of the focus of
`
`the briefing to date.
`
`The pri ma r y a rgument from Patentee as to Do rf man
`
`is the concept that Dorf man, while a pre -press work flow, is
`
`so mehow l i mit ed in appli cation to the type of press that the
`
`output goes to or what happens at the end.
`
`And the argu ment is, well, because Dorf man has
`
`this te mplate -based pre -press , i t is p robabl y better suited to
`
`s maller print jobs and, the refore , to at tach a plate at the end
`
`and have sort of a high volu me outpu t is so mehow a teachin g
`
`away from what is in the Dorf man refere nc e where i t changes
`
`the operatin g principle.
`
`And what we've said in the petition and what the
`
`Board said in the institution was, w ell, Dorf man is a front end
`
`and i t talks about printin g in large qu antities. It tal ks about
`
`using conv entional printing technolog y.
`
`So what happens once you get throug h the
`
`pre-press and how you appl y i t doesn 't change the operatin g
`
`principle, doesn 't c hange an ything. The s yste m still works
`
`exactl y the way that i t is designed to work. You just print out
`
`either small volume or large volume .
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`So that argu ment has si mpl y been reiterated in the
`
`briefing . The Pat ent Owner's respo nse doesn't mention the
`
`institution order, doesn't rebut i t . The declaration mention s
`
`that the declarant read the institution order. He doesn't
`
`an ywhe re refe ren ce i t .
`
`So there has been no rebuttal of what the Board has
`
`held, which is Dorf man discloses a p re -press work flow and
`
`that conventional printin g technol og y that's on the back end is
`
`whatever you want i t to be, and then that's exactl y what
`
`Dorf man teaches is, well, you can use, whether i t is offset
`
`printin g or digital printing , that's up to you, but here is the
`
`front end s yste m.
`
`So that hasn't changed and there is no reason to
`
`disturb what is essentially the record as to Dorf man.
`
`The next pri mar y argu ment as to Jebens gets into
`
`OPI, which is described in all of these patents as kn own , they
`
`mention many di f ferent soft war e packages that do OPI but,
`
`nevertheless, they argue that Jebens doesn't in i ts work order
`
`flow show or call out the word replace.
`
`And that's not responsive to the petitio n because
`
`we didn 't cite to the work flow for that aspect of OPI. We
`
`cited to figure 4 - C which shows OPI right there in the flow
`
`chart. And then there is discussion later of how that work
`
`flow a ctuall y uses that OPI.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`But instead of focusing or rebuttin g any of that,
`
`what the Patentee focuses on is a long explanation about how
`
`work o rders are processed in Jebens . So that doesn't reall y get
`
`to what the petitio n cited and i t 's reall y non -r esponsive to
`
`these grounds . We relied on figure 4 -C and i ts ac comp an ying
`
`description in the specification .
`
`So, again , that's another aspect of the record that's
`
`just si mpl y igno r ed. We didn't rely on the work flow. We
`
`relied on figure 4 -C.
`
`The vast ma jorit y of the argu ments relating to
`
`Dorf man and Jeb ens are directed towards, well, the claims
`
`requi re a central server do X, or the PDF has to be c reated at
`
`this location , but none of those locations are in the clai ms .
`
`And we pointed all of this out in the briefing so I
`
`am not goin g into detail. I know that you read i t . The claims
`
`are quite broad . They don't requi re any specific compon ent, at
`
`least for what has been a rgued here to do these things .
`
`For exa mple , in the '349 , claims 1 and 3 don't call
`
`out OPI. Claim 2 does. And we cited to, again , figure 4 -C for
`
`OPI. So all of these argu ments ab out , you know, the central
`
`server has to do certai n steps, i t is just not in the clai ms.
`
`And the absence of that is particularl y relevant
`
`because the specificatio n even e mp h asizes that any of these
`
`ele ments can do any of these functions , so when you don't call
`
`i t out in the claim as point X doing functi on Y, you can't l imit
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`the claim that way be cause i t is not in the claim and the
`
`specification makes clear that any of these points can do any
`
`of these processe s.
`
`So what i t comes down to on all of these grounds ,
`
`Jebens and Apog ee, is the argu ment s that w e have seen from
`
`the Patentee are s tories that, althoug h interesting , are not
`
`responsiv e to the institution order. They are not res ponsiv e to
`
`the petition . So I don't have a lot to rebut here tod ay.
`
`The one thing that has been new since the
`
`preli minar y respons e is the decla ration of the video expert that
`
`the Patent Owner has hired. And what we see from the
`
`Stevenson declaration is largel y a cut -and-paste from the
`
`Patentee a rgu ments. It is the same exact language. It is very
`
`concluso ry.
`
`Again , i t ac knowledges that the institution order
`
`was read. No wh e re is any finding of the institutio n order
`
`rebutted. It is just this sort of pick ing an aspect of the
`
`specification to try to tell a differ en t stor y that we haven't
`
`relied upon .
`
`If you look at the te chni cal backgr oun d of Mr.
`
`Stevenson , he is an i maging and video expert. When he was
`
`depos ed, he had never worked for a printer, never design ed a
`
`pre-press work flow, didn't und erstand i mposition, had to
`
`Google terms in the specification . So he is clearl y not one of
`
`skill in the art.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`Furth er mo re, he is a District Court expert. When
`
`he was asked why his declaratio n was directed to validit y he
`
`confir med that he applied a presu mption of validit y and that
`
`was the anal ysis that he did.
`
`So when you consid er that and you look at some of
`
`the conclusor y s t ate ments about the claim scope, well, the
`
`claim means X b ecause i t is in the sp ecification , he was
`
`clearl y appl ying a Phillips construction there and there is no
`
`explanation whatsoever an ywher e in the declarat ion of a BRI
`
`anal ysis or an yth i ng.
`
`It is just si mpl y a cut -and -paste of conclusions
`
`from the Patentee respons e. So we thin k his declara tio n is
`
`plainl y unreliable.
`
`MR. Mc NAM AR A: Couns el, there are just two
`
`concepts there that you sort of put tog ether, and I und erstand
`
`that the claim const ruction concept we appli ed broadest
`
`reasonable versu s District Court Phillips, but you also talked
`
`about presu mption of validit y.
`
`But isn't the burden of proof in our proceeding on
`
`the Petitioner?
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: Tha t's correct . There is a
`
`presu mption of p atentabilit y here, but that presu mpt ion is not
`
`t ied to a clear and convin cing standard.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: All right . I just wanted to
`
`make sure I und erstood what you were getting at, oka y, all
`
`right, because clear and convincing standard does not appl y.
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: Sure, there is a presu mptio n
`
`here as there is a presu mption in Dist rict Court but they are
`
`just t ied to different inventions .
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay.
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: So that's sort of where we are on
`
`the pri mar y refe rences. As the Board is aware as to Apogee ,
`
`which is the second ar y reference , or one of the seco ndar y
`
`refere nces, I sho uld say, in the vast ma jorit y of the grounds ,
`
`we were served with objections under 42 .64 (b)(1 ) .
`
`Not su rprisingl y, under 42 .64 (b)(2 ) we served
`
`supplemental ev idence. There is nothing nefarious or sneak y
`
`about that. In fac t, that's entirel y p redictable. So I don't quit e
`
`understand this Trojan Horse argument that we see in the
`
`motions to exclude.
`
`When you obje ct you t ypi c all y get supplemental
`
`evidence. That 's just how the s yste m works . But, again , much
`
`l ike the grounds in this case, the P atentee has igno red that
`
`evidence as well and sort of r efused to even ackno wledg e i ts
`
`existence in the record. They have not deposed a ny of these
`
`witnesses. They just ignored i t .
`
`The re maining argu ments, again, get to sort of the
`
`location processin g in the clai ms, which is unrecited. There is
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`argu ments as to Dorf man being l i mi ted to all of the printin g
`
`and central server being in one room and, therefor e, that figure
`
`should be l imited to that.
`
`And we've got testi mon y from our expert sa ying,
`
`well, one of skill in the art could recogni ze that you could
`
`move those wher ever you want. They are network
`
`co mponents . And, again , there is no rebutt al of that . There is
`
`just, well, figu re 1 is l i mited .
`
`So we are just sort of left with two sides of the
`
`story, one of which is atto rne y a rgu ment and one of which is
`
`based in the evid ence.
`
`There is an argu ment about Jebens which, to be
`
`honest, I don't q uite und erstand about Jebens so mehow sets up
`
`different net works because there is a log -in to the server.
`
`Their specification has the same log -in at column 14 . So I' m
`
`not reall y sure what that is all about .
`
`They have an Internet e mbodi ment in th e
`
`specification . Of course there is di fferent conn ection s going
`
`on. They are all i nternetworked. Th at's how the s yst e m
`
`works. That's how they describe i t .
`
`Apog ee is what is relied upon for the plate - ready
`
`aspect or the creation of a plate - ready file in these grounds .
`
`They argue that Apog ee is l imited to creating that file at the
`
`printer. Our exp e rt has said that's not the case. Also, we rely
`
`on that teaching . We are not ph ysi call y co mbining Apog ee
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`with these r efer ences. And i t is pre tty cle ar, no t only in these
`
`refere nces, but their own patent, that you can move t hes e
`
`features all over the architecture as needed.
`
`So, again , we have evidence as to that. We don't
`
`necessaril y rely on the ph ysical combination. It is the
`
`teachin g from Apogee that modifies the Dorf man and Jebens
`
`grounds .
`
`So th at's where we are. That's what I have. And
`
`unless there are further questions I will reserve the re mainder
`
`for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay. Co uns el, thank you.
`
`Actuall y you have 75 minutes left.
`
`MR. Mc KEOWN: Okay.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Well, hopefull y you won't need to
`
`take that long for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Do you want me to alert
`
`you to any pa rticular t ime frame or are you okay?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: I don't think that I will be needing
`
`any assistance in ke eping track of the t ime for this one, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: All right . Thank you.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Edward Ra mage for the P atent
`
`Owner. Since we do have the burden of proof with regard to
`
`the motion to ex clude, I would l ike to go ahead and address
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`that first and add ress the concerns that they have had with
`
`regard to the page l imit.
`
`I think i t is clear from the record with regard to,
`
`you know, what caused the first mo tion, supple mental
`
`evidence leading to what has been called as the second motion.
`
`I think this can be easil y r esolv ed depending upon how the
`
`Board treats the first motion.
`
`The Petition ers have basicall y treated i t as
`
`objections on the record. And, Your Honors, we have no
`
`objectio n to this Board also treating that first motio n as
`
`objections on the record. And all of our a rgu ments with
`
`regard to any of the evidence with regard to exclud ing the
`
`evidence is cont ained in our second motion.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: What is the objection?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: There are actuall y two ob jections ,
`
`two pri ma r y obje ctions . One is with the original Ap ogee and
`
`the original decl aration , and then the next is with what has
`
`been called supple mental evidence, but what clearl y is
`
`supplemental infor mation.
`
`Would you -- I can start with one or the other .
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Motion s to exclude are
`
`filed to be consistent with objection s under the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence . So I' m wondering what section of the Fed eral
`
`Rules of Evidence you are objecting under?
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`MR. RAMAGE: With regard to the Apogee , we
`
`have objected to i t on the basis of not being relevant, as not
`
`being -- basicall y as not being prior art that has an established
`
`publication date.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay. But not prior art and
`
`the established publi cation date is a substantiv e arg ument. Is
`
`there an ob je ction under the Federal Rules of Evidence? Is i t
`
`hearsa y?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Other than relevance, Your
`
`Honor, I mean, and, quit e honestl y, we know the Board 's
`
`prefere nce to r eceiving evid ence and then giving appropriate
`
`weight, we would be fine if the Board considered, you know,
`
`accepted Apog ee but then deter min ed that i t was not
`
`applicable prior art because there was no publi cation date.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Here is the issue, and i t is
`
`an issue because i f i t were a substantive argu ment , then i t
`
`would have been appropriate to address i t in the Patent Owner
`
`respons e and not in a motion to exclud e.
`
`So add ressin g i t in a motion to exclude, our
`
`concern is that's just an end run a roun d the page l imit in the
`
`Patent Owner res ponse.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: There has been no end run, Your
`
`Honor, because i t was full y addressed in actuall y the Patent
`
`Owne r's respons es in full in each of those.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`MR. RAMAGE: It was in cluded wi thin the Patent
`
`Owne r's respons e.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Can you cite to me where in
`
`the Patent Owner respons e i t is addressed?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Yes, Your Honor. And you want
`
`the paper nu mber s as well?
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Yes, i f you could. I just
`
`need to know, i t 's in the Patent Owner respons e you' re t alking
`
`about . So if you can tell me where in the Patent Owner
`
`response.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Certain l y.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: A page range or so mething
`
`l ike that would be helpful.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: I can tell you the exact page
`
`nu mber .
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay. Gre at.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: For the 788 i t is page 53 . For the
`
`789 i t begins on page 46 . For the 790 i t begin s on page 53 .
`
`And for the 791 i t begins on page 39 .
`
`Your Honor, you will find that the argu ment s
`
`raised, in fact, are al most identical with the argu men ts that
`
`were raised in the initial motion, with regard to Apog ee.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: All right . And that's in the
`
`Patent Owner res ponse. Okay.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Yes. So they are, in fact, in the
`
`Patent Owner 's r esponse. We have no intent to try to avoid
`
`any of the page l imits.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay.
`
`MR. RAMAG E: With regard to Suetens, what we
`
`have was the case where his decl aration that was origin ally
`
`filed was wholl y unsupported by his depositio n testimo n y.
`
`We have sub mitted that depositio n testi mon y, and I
`
`will not belabor you with regard to individual ci tation s to his
`
`declaration, how they were undercut by his deposition
`
`testi mon y. That's a matter of r ecord , both in the Patent
`
`Owne r's respons e and also in that first motion, which we are
`
`construin g as ob jections on the reco rd.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: All right . Because, as I
`
`recall, Suetens in his declaratio n d oesn't testif y as to personal
`
`knowledge. He says he looked at the archives. Right?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Correct .
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: So Suetens' testimon y is
`
`perhaps closer to his assess ment of the busin ess rec o rds?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: In fact, i t turns out when
`
`questioned about that he is not a custodian of the busin ess
`
`records. There is nothing to actuall y support that what he was
`
`looking at was the business records.
`
`And in his depositio n testi mon y when we were
`
`talkin g about so mething that could possibly have been a
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`business record if introduced by the appropriate individual, he
`
`said he had no k nowledge of, basicall y, he wasn't involved
`
`with the preparation of that docu me nt or the maintenance of
`
`that docu ment.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: I see. Okay.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: With regard to the supple mental
`
`declaration and the declaratio n of Jahn, those are, if you look
`
`at the substance of those, thos e quit e clearl y are what this
`
`Board has construed as suppl e mental infor mation, not
`
`supplemental ev idence.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay. Let me ask you
`
`anoth er question about that. And, again, this to some extent
`
`goes to procedure and, perhaps, maybe sort of a questio n on
`
`dela ying thing s too long in one of these proceedings .
`
`You didn't take a deposition, a second depositi on
`
`of Suetens or a d eposition of Jahn, is that right?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: No, Your Honor, we did not.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Okay. All right . The trial
`
`practice guide provides that if so mething comes along after
`
`your, you know, after your final subst antiv e paper that you can
`
`file motions for observations on cros s -exa mination .
`
`Why wouldn't that have been the appropriat e
`
`avenue here as opposed to a motion to exclude?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: This is supple me ntal infor mation,
`
`Your Honor. This i sn't supplement al evidence. If, in fact,
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`these declarations had even appeared to be suppl e me ntal
`
`evidence then, yes, we probabl y woul d have taken their
`
`depositions to deter mine whether or not they addressed the
`
`initial questio n of whether or not the Suete ns declaration , the
`
`origin al Suetens declaration, and the Apogee refe rence should
`
`be ad mitted as evid ence.
`
`And we have alread y add ressed I note the Apogee
`
`use, as to whether or not that was a proper evidentiary
`
`question as oppo sed to a questio n on the me rits .
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Then distinguish for me in
`
`your mind what the distin ctio n is between suppl e mental
`
`evidence and suppl e mental infor mation.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: I can quot e you.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Sure. Wh atever you want
`
`to do. Ho wever you want to handle i t . I just want to clarif y
`
`your positio n on i t .
`
`MR. RAMAGE: I will quot e this Board from i ts
`
`Handi Quilter decision.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: What is that IPR nu mb er?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: I PR2013 -00364 . This is Paper 30
`
`from that. It is the me morandu m, condu ct of pr ocee ding .
`
`The Board stated: " We explained that we agree
`
`with Patent Own er's understanding, Section 42 .123 , addresses
`
`the filing of suppl e mental infor mation , not suppl e me ntal
`
`evidence.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`" The diff erence is that suppl e mental evid en ce
`
`served in response to an evidentiary ob jection and filed in
`
`respons e to a mo t ion to exclude is o ffered solel y to support
`
`ad missibility of the originally filed evidence and to defeat a
`
`motion to exclud e that evid ence and not to suppo rt any
`
`argu ment on the me rits, i .e., rega rdi n g the patentabilit y or
`
`unpatentabilit y of a claim.
`
`" Suppl e mental in for mation, on the other hand, is
`
`evidence of party intent to support an argu ment on the merits .
`
`Such evidence may only be filed if a Sectio n 123 mot io n is
`
`both autho rized and granted."
`
`Now, with regard to the specific case about
`
`whether or not evidenti ar y issues with regard to the
`
`publication date or the date that the Apogee re feren ce was
`
`publicly available, in the decisio n of To yota Motor
`
`Corporatio n versus Ame rican Vehicular Sciences ,
`
`IPR2013 -0417 , Paper 78 , the final written decision , footnot e 1 ,
`
`the Board stated : " We note that although there are evid entiary
`
`issues relating to Frye, the question of whether Frye
`
`constitutes prior art is not i tself an evidentiar y issue" -- as, in
`
`fact, Your Hono rs alread y noted -- " rather, i t is part of the
`
`substantive case that Toyota must p rove."
`
`So, th er efore , if you look at these two declarations ,
`
`the suppl e mental declaration and the declaratio n of Jahn ,
`
`which also has attached to i t addit ion al do cu ments including
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`what appea r to be variations on the Apogee reference, what the
`
`Petitioners are tr ying to do with thos e two decla rations is
`
`introduce new ev idence on the me ri ts.
`
`They should not be able or per mitte d to do so and
`
`this Board shoul d strike those two d eclarations from the record
`
`as i mp roperl y sub mitted supple men t al infor mation.
`
`JUDGE Mc NAMAR A: Thank you.
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Turning now to the merits on the
`
`decision , we agree that the p ri mar y references to be addressed
`
`are Jebens, Dorf man and Apog ee.
`
`With regard to Jebens, our position is that i t
`
`appears that the P etition ers misunderstand our basic argu ment .
`
`With regard to the ma jorit y of the claims at issu e in all four --
`
`excuse me, all two of the patents and all four of the
`
`proceedings , one of the pri ma r y iss u es is where is a
`
`plate-read y file being generated.
`
`Petitioners seem to argue that the swapping out,
`
`what they are calling the OPI process , the s wapping out of low
`
`resolutio n files in a digital image file cre ated by the end user
`
`or a clien t user, that that occurs at the central or the host
`
`facilit y in Jebens .
`
`Howeve r, what we have point ed out and with what
`
`was basicall y dis r egarded as job ord ers versus work orders
`
`descriptions , is where Jebens is describing what i t actually
`
`does at the c entral facili t y.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00788 and -00789 (Patent 6,738,155)
`Cases IPR2014-00790 and -00791 (Patent 6,611,349)
`
`All J ebens is doing at the central facility is taking
`
`files, high resolutio n files, i t is initi all y using the OPI process
`
`to generate the low resolutio n files, and i t is essentiall y
`
`serving as a l ibrar y of those digital assets, those dig i tal files.
`
`It then, in order to serve i ts purposes of increasing
`
`accessibilit y to t hose digit al images and to allow them to be
`
`used in a variet y of different ways, i t provides them to be
`
`logging on as the front end users who are usin g them to create
`
`docu ments.
`
`But what Jebens is clear about what happens when
`
`that docu ment is then sub mitted to the central facili t y is
`
`Jebens does not actuall y do any substantiv e processing of that
`
`file. Instead, what i t does is i t takes that file with the low
`
`resolutio n images from the front end user and then i t packs i t ,
`
`or i t doesn't change that file but i t acco mp anies i t with and
`
`packages i t with the high resoluti on files.
`
`At best then i t compress es i t and then i t sends that
`
`package to what ever print er is used. So J ebens does not
`
`actuall y disclose an ything that can be const rued as generating
`
`a plate-re ad y file.
`
`JUDGE WOOD: So what does the printer do when
`
`i t gets that package?
`
`MR. RAMAGE: Well, J ebens is silent as to that.
`
`But presu mabl y they are going to proce ss that accordin g to
`
`what