throbber
Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies, LLC
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD, and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-010961
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00493 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Revised Order of September 15, 2015, Paper 36,
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “IDT”)
`
`files these objections to Petitioner’s oral argument demonstratives served by
`
`Petitioner on September 10, 2015.
`
`Objection No. 1 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 9)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 9 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 106:18-21),
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 2 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 10)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 10 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 106:22-25),
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`Objection No. 3 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 11)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 11 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 107:7-12),
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 4 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 12)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 12 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 107:13-18),
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 5 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 13)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 13 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 108:6-10),
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 6 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 14)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 14 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 108:11-24),
`
`that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first
`
`time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 7 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 15)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 15 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 108:25-
`
`109:4), that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for
`
`the first time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 8 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 18)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 18 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 113:25-
`
`114:5), that was not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for
`
`the first time in Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`Objection No. 9 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 22)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 22 on the basis that it includes new arguments
`
`from the Reply that could have been made in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23;
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620, col. 2 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) ("Reply evidence, however, must be responsive and not merely new
`
`evidence that could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.").
`
`The Petitioner cites to a portion of the transcript of the deposition of Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Michael Escuti, (Ex. 1021 at 108:12-21), which contains the new argument.
`
`Further, the Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the deposition (Ex. 1021 at
`
`108:12-18) that was not cited in the Reply.
`
`Objection No. 10 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 23)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 23 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to a portion of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Petitioner’s Expert, Michael Escuti, (Ex. 1021 at 105:8-14) that was
`
`not cited in its Petition or in its Reply. This argument is made for the first time in
`
`Petitioner’s demonstratives.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`Objection No. 11 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 24)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 24 on the basis that it includes new arguments
`
`from the Reply that could have been made in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23;
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620, col. 2 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) ("Reply evidence, however, must be responsive and not merely new
`
`evidence that could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.").
`
`The Petitioner cites to a portion of the transcript of the deposition of Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Michael Escuti, (Ex. 1021 at 105:16-22), which contains the new argument,
`
`as well as identifies different structure within Fig. 1 of Pristash that was not, but
`
`could have been, identified in the Petition. Further, the Petitioner belatedly cites to
`
`a portion of the deposition (Ex. 1021 at 105:20-22) that was not cited in the Reply.
`
`Objection No. 12 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 25)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 25 on the basis that it contains new arguments
`
`and citations that are untimely and prejudicial to Patent Owner, and which were
`
`not made in either the Petition or Reply. (Ex. 1006 at col. 7, ll. 18, 50-51, Fig. 15,
`
`and Fig. 18).
`
`Objection No. 12 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 26)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 26 on the basis that it contains new arguments
`
`and citations that are untimely and prejudicial to Patent Owner, and which were
`
`not made in either the Petition or Reply. (Ex. 1006 at col. 7, ll. 17-23 and Fig. 15).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`Objection No. 13 (to Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slide 29)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Slide 29 on the grounds that it includes arguments
`
`from Petitioner that are untimely, prejudicial to Patent Owner, and not of record in
`
`this proceeding. The Petitioner belatedly cites to portions of the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Patent Owner’s Expert, Kenneth Werner, (Ex. 1020, at 118:6-8,
`
`118:9-11, 118:12-17, 118:18-22, 118:23-119:4, 120:6-11), that were not cited in its
`
`Petition or in its Reply. These arguments are made for the first time in Petitioner’s
`
`demonstratives.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01096
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that document was served via electronic mail
`
`on September 17, 2015, to Petitioner via counsel, Robert Pluta, at the email
`
`addresses
`
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com,
`
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com,
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com, alam@mayerbrown.com, jbeaber@mayerbrown.com,
`
`and DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com, pursuant to Petitioner’s consent in its revised
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 58,591
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`mandatory notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket