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
`
`Title:
`
`REMOTE CONTROL
`SYSTEM
`
`Attorney Doc.: 059489.144300
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`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
`31, 2015.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Eric J. Maiers
`Eric J. Maiers
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`2001.
`
`2002.
`
`2003.
`
`2004.
`
`2005.
`
`2006.
`
`2007.
`
`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)
`
`2008-2016. INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED
`
`2017.
`
`2018.
`
`2019.
`
`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.)
`
`2020.
`
`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.
`
`2046.
`
`2047.
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Thomas Gafford
`
`INTENTIONALLY SKIPPED
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`2066. Redline of Proposed Protective Order
`
`2067.
`
`2068.
`
`2069.
`
`Redacted Nevo/Xsight Sales Data
`
`Redacted UEI Upgradeable Sales Data
`
`Redacted UEI Licensing Royalties
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`The Board should deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 30) for
`
`the simple reason that it is conclusory and thus Petitioner has failed to meet its
`
`burden to show that any evidence is inadmissible. For example, with respect to
`
`Mr. Cook’s redirect examination, Petitioner has not identified a single, specific
`
`question that it believes was leading, nor has it provided any analysis as to why
`
`any question is purportedly leading. Further, in some instances, Petitioner’s
`
`objections were waived, untimely and/or inadequate.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`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.
`
`III. MR. COOK’S CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY THAT THE
`CIARCIA REFERENCE LACKS THE CLAIMED “INPUT MEANS”
`SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to exclude testimony that Patent Owner’s expert,
`
`Alex Cook, provided in response to Petitioner’s own questions seeking that very
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`testimony. In essence, Petitioner wishes to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to
`
`freely ask questions of a witness, but then it only wants the Board to consider the
`
`answers that are favorable to Petitioner’s case. Petitioner cannot have it both ways.
`
`Petitioner cannot now object, when it was Petitioner who opened the door.
`
`Petitioner waived any objection to Mr. Cook’s testimony that Ciarcia lacks
`
`the claimed “input means” when Petitioner directly and unequivocally sought to
`
`elicit that very testimony through the following question(s):
`
`Q. Okay. So Ciarcia, under your definition of input means,
`has an input means?
`A. Ciarcia -- You're asking me if Ciarcia has an input means
`-- You're asking if Ciarcia meets the requirements as I've defined them
`in the claim?
`Q. Yes.
`(Ex. 1053 at 418:18-25 (“Cook Dep.”).)
`
`Petitioner did not stop there; it continued to ask follow-up questions on the
`
`same topic, such as the following: “Q. All right. Ciarcia has buttons for
`
`inputting commands into the remote control, correct?” (Id. at 419:11-13.) In short,
`
`even if Mr. Cook’s testimony regarding the lack of an “input means” in Ciaria was
`
`outside the scope of his direct testimony, Petitioner waived that objection by
`
`asking questions that directly sought that testimony.1 Moreover, an objection that
`
`
`1 See People v. Burage, 23 Ill. 2d 280, 178 N.E.2d 389 (1961) (party who brings
`out inadmissible testimony has no right to have it excluded unless objectionable
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`cross-examination testimony is outside the scope of the direct is not the cross-
`
`examining party’s objection to make. Rather, a proper objection for the
`
`questioning party is that the testimony is not responsive to the question posed.
`
`However, petitioner has not, indeed cannot, allege that Mr. Cook’s testimony was
`
`non-responsive—again, it was directly responsive to Petitioner’s unambiguous
`
`questions. For that reason alone, the Board should deny Petitioner’s motion.
`
`The Board should also deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude Mr. Cook’s
`
`testimony on the absence of “input means” in Ciacia, because Petitioner did not
`
`properly and timely object to Mr. Cook’s testimony. Any objection to the content,
`
`form, or manner of taking the deposition, including the qualifications of the officer,
`
`is waived unless made on the record during the deposition. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(f)(8). In the nearly five pages of testimony that Petitioner elicited and is
`
`now seeking to exclude, the only statement by Mr. Kang, counsel for Petitioner,
`
`that could arguably be considered an “objection” is the following:
`
`MR. KANG: Just for the record, I'll move to strike any
`testimony on the issue of whether or not Ciarcia satisfies the input
`means of the '917 claims.
`MR. MAIERS: We'll contend you opened the door.
`
`
`material is contained in answer that is not responsive); see also State v. Haselhorst,
`1984, 353 N.W.2d 7, 218 Neb. 233 (where the defendant's counsel asked a
`dangerous question, he could not complain that motion to strike unfavorable
`answer was denied).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`(Cook Dep. at 423:1-6.) However, the above statement by counsel for
`
`Petitioner does not provide any basis, much less a valid one, for excluding
`
`Mr. Cook’s testimony. Rather, counsel merely stated he would move to
`
`strike testimony on a certain topic. That, in and of itself, was insufficient to
`
`put Patent Owner on notice of the basis of Petitioner’s objection. Moreover,
`
`even if the above statement was a proper objection—which it was not—the
`
`statement was untimely, as it was made as many as 10 questions (and five
`
`transcript pages) after those that prompted the testimony that Petitioner now
`
`seeks to exclude. Any attempt to object that Petitioner may have made after
`
`the conclusion of Mr. Cook’s testimony is likewise untimely. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.53(f)(8).
`
`For all the above reasons, the Board should not exclude Mr. Cook’s
`
`testimony that Ciarcia lacks the claimed “input means.”
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE MR. COOK’S TESTIMONY
`ON REDIRECT
`Simply put, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that any questions
`
`posed to Mr. Cook during his redirect examination were leading and should be
`
`excluded. Petitioner’s “Analysis,” which barely spans more than a single page,
`
`does not identify a single, specific question that Petitioner believes was leading,
`
`much less analyze whether any question was, in fact, leading. Petitioner does not
`
`even cite any legal authority for what constitutes a leading question. And with
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`good reason—none of the questions posed to Mr. Cook during his redirect
`
`examination were improper leading questions.
`
`Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as to
`
`preliminary matters. FED. R. EVID. 611(c).2 A leading question is one that
`
`suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examiner.3 McCormick On Evid.
`
`§ 6 (7th ed.). None of the questions posed to Mr. Cook on redirect gave him any
`
`indication as to the desired answer. By way of example, the question, “And do you
`
`have an understanding of what the priority date of the '313 patent is?” clearly does
`
`not suggest any preferred answer to the witness. (See Ex. 1054 at 746:9-11.) Yet
`
`that is precisely the type of question that petitioner is seeking to exclude as leading.
`
`Petitioner simply has not met its burden of showing that any of the questions
`
`posed to Mr. Cook on redirect were leading, that he lacked foundation, or that he
`
`was speculating. Accordingly, the Board should not exclude Mr. Cook’s redirect
`
`testimony.
`
`
`2 The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to inter partes review proceedings, unless
`otherwise provided in the regulations governing inter partes reviews. 37 C.F.R. §
`42.62(a).
`3 Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion a question is not leading simply by virtue of
`the fact that its response may be a “yes” or a “no.” To be leading, a question must
`go further and actually suggest the answer to the witness.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01104
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Petitioner’s Motiont o
`
`Exclude in its entirety.
`
`Date: July 31, 2015
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Date:
`
`July 31, 2015
`
`/s/ Eric J. Maiers
`Eric J. Maiers

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