`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