`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: