throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Applicant:
`
`Darbee
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`v.
`
`Filing Date: October 8, 1993
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`5,414,761
`
`Trial Paralegal: Cathy Underwood
`
`REMOTE CONTROL
`SYSTEM
`
`Attorney Doc.: 059489.144300
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically filed with the USPTO on July
`21, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Robbie R. Harmer
`Robbie R. Harmer
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`3D-Matrix, Ltd. v. Menicon Co., IPR2014-00398, Paper No. 11
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014)
`
`Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042, Paper No. 16
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)
`
`Research in Motion Corp. v. Wi-Lan USA Inc., IPR2013-00126, Paper
`No. 10 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2013)
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Cisco Tech., Inc., IPR2013-00329, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B.
`Nov. 29, 2013)
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc., IPR2013-00222,
`Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013)
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, IPR2013-00581, Paper No.
`15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183,
`Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013)
`
`2001.
`
`
`2002.
`
`
`2003.
`
`
`2004.
`
`
`2005.
`
`
`2006.
`
`
`2007.
`
`
`2018.
`
`
`2019.
`
`
`2020.
`
`
`
`
`2008-2016. INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED
`
`2017.
`
`Trial Transcript from Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote
`Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 398-1
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.’s (“URC’s”) Initial Disclosures from
`Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No.
`8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal.)
`
`URC’s Response to UEI’s Interrogatory at No. 6 from Universal
`Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-
`00329-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Ohsung Website Printout, available at
`http://www.ohsungec.com/02_affli/02_foreign/06.aspx.
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`2021.
`
`
`2022.
`
`
`2023.
`
`
`2024.
`
`2025.
`
`
`2026.
`
`
`2027.
`
`
`2028.
`
`
`2029.
`
`2030.
`
`2031.
`
`URC’s Amended Initial Disclosures from Universal Electronics, Inc.
`v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00329-AG-JPR (C.D.
`Cal.)
`
`Defendant Ohsung Electronics, USA, Inc.’s Answer to Second
`Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 76, from Universal Electronics Inc., v.
`Universal Remote Control, Inc., Ohsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Ohsung Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No. SACV 13-00984 AG
`(JPRx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`LinkedIn Profile of Jak You, available at
`https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jak-you/92/8a5/6b.
`
`09/05/2013 M. Hurley Email to L. Kenneally
`
`Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition to URC from Universal
`Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-
`00329-AG-JPR (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Stipulation Staying Action Pending Petitions for Inter Partes
`Review of All Asserted Claims, Dkt. No. 87 from Universal
`Electronics Inc., v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., Ohsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Ohsung Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
`SACV 13-00984 AG (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Joint Statement of the Parties Pursuant to Order Staying Action (ECF
`No. 88) and Joint Request to Continue Status Conference, Dkt. No.
`102 from Universal Electronics Inc., v. Universal Remote Control,
`Inc., Ohsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Ohsung Electronics U.S.A.,
`Inc., Case No. SACV 13-00984 AG (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`URC NY Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, Entity
`Information Website Printout
`
`Declaration of Alex Cook
`
`Declaration of Ramzi Ammari
`
`June 28, 2004 Intrigue/Logitech Settlement Agreement
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`2032.
`
`2033.
`
`Logitech Harmony Claim Charts
`
`July 1, 2012 Logitech Settlement Agreement
`
`2034. Logitech Harmony 650 Manual
`
`2035. Logitech Harmony 700 Manual
`
`2036. Logitech Harmony 900 Manual
`
`2037. Logitech Harmony One Manual
`
`2038. Logitech Harmony 1100 Manual
`
`2039. January 1, 2002 Contec Settlement Agreement
`
`2040. September 1, 2009 Contec Holdings Agreement
`
`2041. Excerpts of Logitech Annual Reports 2007 through 2014
`
`2042. January 1, 2007 RTI Settlement Agreement
`
`2043. Nevo/Xsight Sales Data
`
`2044. December 17, 2001 U.S. Electronics Settlement Agreement
`
`2045-46.
`
`INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED
`
`2047.
`
`Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, IPR2013-00265,
`Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)
`
`2048. UEI Upgradeable Sales Data
`
`2049. UEI Licensing Royalties
`
`2050.
`
`November 1, 2004 URC Settlement Agreement
`
`2051-63.
`
`INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED
`
`2064. Redacted Declaration of Ramzi Ammari
`
`2065. Proposed Protective Order
`
`2066. Redline of Proposed Protective Order
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`Redacted Nevo/Xsight Sales Data
`
`Redacted UEI Upgradeable Sales Data
`
`Redacted UEI Licensing Royalties
`
`2067.
`
`2068.
`
`2069.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) seeks to exclude evidence submitted in support of Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper No. 21), which Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“URC” or
`
`“Petitioner”) filed on June 25, 2015, and the portions of Petitioner’s Reply that rely
`
`thereon. In particular, Petitioner’s Reply was accompanied by a datasheet for an
`
`Intel 8254 Programmable Interval Timer (Ex. 1043) that is not relevant to this inter
`
`partes review according to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, and therefore that
`
`document, and any of Petitioner’s arguments that rely on that document, are
`
`inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`A motion to exclude evidence must explain why the cited evidence is not
`
`admissible. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 66, at 61 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) (citing 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48765, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012)). The motion to exclude must also: (a) identify
`
`where in the record the objection was originally made; (b) identify where in the
`
`record the evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by an opponent; (c)
`
`address objections to exhibits in numerical order; and (d) explain each objection.
`
`Id.
`
`Further, “Admissibility of evidence is generally governed by the Federal
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`Rules of Evidence.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48758 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Trial Practice Guide indicates that a motion to
`
`exclude challenging relevancy is proper. Id. at 48767 (stating that “[a] motion to
`
`exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or
`
`hearsay)”). To that end, Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states that evidence is
`
`relevant if “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining
`
`the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. And “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`The Board has two options if a petitioner submits improper evidence with its
`
`reply. CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033,
`
`Paper No. 79, at 3 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2013). The Board can (a) exclude the
`
`evidence or (b) decline to consider the evidence. See id. (stating that “[s]hould
`
`there be improper . . . evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its
`
`discretion, may exclude the . . . related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively,
`
`decline to consider the . . . related evidence.”).
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`URC filed its Petition for inter partes review on July 2, 2014 (Paper No. 1).
`
`In its Petition, URC asserted four prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 4,918,439
`
`(Wozniak); U.S. Patent No. 4,667,181 (Hastreiter); an article entitled “CORE
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`Serial Interface Manual” (CS-232 Manual); and an article entitled “Build a
`
`Trainable Infrared Master Controller” authored by Steve Ciarcia and published in
`
`BYTE magazine in March 1987 (Ciarcia). (Paper No. 1, URC Pet. at 5 – 6.) URC
`
`did not identify or submit any other prior art in its Petition. (See generally Paper
`
`No. 1, URC Pet.) In the Decision to Institute (Paper No. 9), the Board instituted
`
`the current inter partes review based solely on the combination of Ciarcia and
`
`Hastreiter. (Paper No. 9, Decision to Institute at 12.)
`
`In its Reply, URC claims that UEI and its expert, Mr. Cook, somehow
`
`“ignore” the so-called “complete teachings” of Ciarcia. (Paper No. 21, URC Reply
`
`at 15.) In particular, URC suggests that the “complete teachings” of Ciarcia
`
`include a twenty-one page datasheet for an Intel 8254 Programmable Interval
`
`Timer (Ex. 1043) (the “Datasheet”), which URC did not identify in its Petition.
`
`(Id.; see also generally Paper No. 1, URC Pet.) For example, URC said that when
`
`Mr. Cook was asked about the Datasheet at his deposition days earlier, Mr. Cook
`
`purportedly contradicted “the literal disclosure of Ciarcia and the literal words of
`
`the Intel 8254 datasheet.” (Paper No. 21, URC Reply at 15.) While Ciarcia does
`
`reference “an 8254 programmable interval timer” (e.g., Ex. 1005, Ciarcia at 118),
`
`nowhere does Ciarcia reference the Datasheet, much less incorporate the Datasheet
`
`by reference. (See generally Ex. 1005, Ciarcia.)
`
`On July 1, 2015, within five business days of the filing of Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`UEI timely objected to the Datasheet (Ex. 1043) and the corresponding portion of
`
`URC’s Reply in its Notice of Objections to Evidence (Paper No. 23).
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 1043 IS INADMISSIBLE UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF
`EVIDENCE 401 AND 402 BECAUSE EXHIBIT 1043 DOES NOT
`TEND TO MAKE IT ANY MORE OR LESS PROBABLE THAT
`CIARCIA DISCLOSES ANY LIMITATION OF CLAIMS 1, 9, 10, OR
`14 – 17.
`
`Because the twenty-one page Datasheet (Ex. 1043) and the corresponding
`
`portion of URC’s Reply at page 15 do not tend to make it any more or less
`
`probable that Ciarcia discloses any limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, or 14 – 17 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,414,761 (“the ’761 Patent”), the Datasheet and the corresponding
`
`portion of URC’s Reply are not relevant and should be excluded from evidence
`
`here. The Board instituted this inter partes review based on the combination of
`
`Ciarcia and Hastreiter—not based on any combination involving the Datasheet,
`
`which URC now identifies in its Reply. (See generally Paper No. 9, Decision to
`
`Institute; see id. at 12; Paper No. 21, URC Reply at 15.)
`
`Moreover, the Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]o incorporate matter by
`
`reference, a host document must contain language ‘clearly identifying the subject
`
`matter which is incorporated and where it is to be found’; a ‘mere reference to
`
`another application, or patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything
`
`therein . . . .’” Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (quoting In re De Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (C.C. P.A. 1973)). The
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`Federal Circuit added, “‘the host document must identify with detailed particularity
`
`what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is
`
`found in the various documents.’” Callaway Golf, 576 F.3d at 1346 (quoting
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000)). But Ciarcia does not even reference, much less incorporate, the Datasheet
`
`for the 8254 programmable interval timer. (See generally Ex. 1005, Ciarcia.) Nor
`
`does Ciarcia clearly identify any subject matter that is to be incorporated from the
`
`Datasheet. (Id.)
`
`In short, the Datasheet about the 8254 programmable interval timer forms no
`
`part of the Ciarcia-Hastreiter obviousness combination upon which this inter
`
`partes review is based. Nothing from the Datasheet makes it any more or less
`
`probable that the combination of Ciarcia and Hastreiter—and only those
`
`references—discloses any of the limitations of claims 1, 9, 10, or 14 – 17 of the
`
`’761 Patent. The Datasheet and the corresponding portion of URC’s Reply at page
`
`15 are therefore irrelevant under Rule 401 and inadmissible under Rule 402.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For all the foregoing reasons, the Datasheet (Ex. 1043) and the
`
`corresponding portion of URC’s Reply at page 15 are not relevant and therefore
`
`inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Eric J. Maiers/
`
`
`By: Eric J. Maiers, Reg. No. 59,614
`James J. Lukas, Reg. No. 59,114
`Matthew J. Levinstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Rob R. Harmer, Reg. No. 68,048
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 21, 2015
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the below date, I caused the
`
`foregoing to be served upon the following counsel of record via electronic mail
`
`(with counsel’s agreement):
`
`Douglas A. Miro
`Keith Barkaus
`Jeannie Ngai
`Ostrolenk Faber LLP
`1180 Avenue of the Americas New
`York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 596-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 382-0888
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`JNgai@ostrolenk.com
`
`Peter H. Kang, Reg. No. 40,350
`Theodore W. Chandler, Reg. No. 50,319
`Ferenc Pazmandi, Reg. No. 66,216
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1001 Page Mill Rd.
`Building One
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (65) 565-7100
`pkang@sidley.com
`tchandler@sidley.com
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`urc@sidley.com
`
`July 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Robbie R. Harmer
`Robbie R. Harmer
`
`
`
`
`Date:

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