`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS' RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER'S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR1
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Patent Owner’s motion for observation is improper and should be
`dismissed .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Response To Patent Owner’s Observations .................................................... 2
`
`Observation 1.
`Observation 2.
`
` .......................................................................................... 2
`. ......................................................................................... 2
`
`Certificate of Service ................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s motion for observation is improper and should be
`dismissed
`
`A “motion for observation on cross-examination is a mechanism to draw the
`
`Board’s attention to relevant cross-examination testimony of a reply witness.”
`
`Medtronic Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 31 at 3. The Board has
`
`been clear that the observations must be nothing more than a “concise statement of
`
`the relevance of precisely identified testimony to a precisely identified argument or
`
`portion of an exhibit.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37
`
`at 2. Observations are not allowed to include arguments, and are not “an
`
`opportunity to raise new issues, to re-argue issues, or to pursue objections.” PTAB
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 F.R. 157, 48768 §L; IPR2013-00506, Paper 37 at 2. If
`
`even one observation is found to have violated these rules, the Board may dismiss
`
`and not consider the Patent Owner’s entire motion for observation. See IPR2013-
`
`00506, Paper 37 at 2-4 (“the entire motion… may be dismissed and not considered
`
`if there is even one excessively long or argumentative observation”); see also
`
`CBM2013-00017, Paper 36 at 4.
`
`On June 10, 2015, Patent Owner filed its Motion for Observations on Cross
`
`Examination of Dr. Gregory Davis. (Paper No. 33.) Petitioner believes that one or
`
`more of the Patent Owner’s observations are improper as they are argumentative,
`
`include new issues not previously raised, and/or re-argue prior issues and pursue
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`objections. Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board deny Patent Owner’s
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR1
`
`motion.
`
`II. Response To Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Notwithstanding the above general objections, Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits the following responses.
`
`Observation 1. Observation 1 improperly raises a new argument related
`
`to the “textbook definition of road load” which is not at issue in this case.
`
`Observation 1 is also not relevant because it pertains to both experts’ testimony
`
`regarding the “textbook definition of road load” and not the “instantaneous
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative” (i.e., The claimed
`
`“road load” of the ’634 Patent). In contrast, Dr. Davis testified that whether “the
`
`‘instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle’ [i.e., claimed “road load”]
`
`meets or exceeds those [external] forces depends on the operator command. (Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶¶290-92.) For example, if a driver wants to accelerate the vehicle, the
`
`‘instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle’ will exceed the torque
`
`required to overcome those forces. And if a driver wants to decelerate the vehicle,
`
`the ‘instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle’ will be less than the torque
`
`required to overcome those forces.” (Ex. 1044 at ¶9.)
`
`Observation 2. Observation 2 is irrelevant and improperly attempts to
`
`raise a new issue never raised, concerning prior art never discussed, in Dr. Davis’
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR1
`
`direct testimony in this proceeding. Paice does not compare the observed cross-
`
`examination testimony (Ex. 2015, p. 19, lines 16-22) to any testimony from Dr.
`
`Davis in this IPR. Rather, Paice asserts the testimony is relevant to Dr. Davis’
`
`testimony in a later IPR (2014-01416) concerning a prior art reference (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,842,534) not at issue in this IPR. Further, Paice’s assertions that Dr. Davis
`
`“agreed” to certain matters are incorrect and unsupported by the cited testimony.
`
`And Paice cites no testimony supporting Paice’s suggestion that the unrelated prior
`
`art reference from the later proceeding concerns “the same type of disclosure” as
`
`the prior art Dr. Davis analyzed in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /John P. Rondini/
`John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`DENTONS US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 22, 2015, a complete and
`
`entire copy of Petitioners' Response To Patent Owner's Motion For
`
`Observations On Cross Examination, was served via electronic mail by serving
`
`the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0015IP1@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com; Greene@fr.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Reg. No. 33,487
`Linda L. Kordziel, Reg. No. 39,732
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0015IP1@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com; Greene@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /John P. Rondini/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`John E. Nemazi (Reg. No. 30,876)
`John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949)
`Erin K. Bowles (Reg. No. 64,705)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`4
`
`
`