UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER L. REED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 14, 2015
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER L. REED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 14, 2015
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`
`
`
`I, Kristopher L. Reed, hereby declare the following:
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with the firm of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
`
`LLP.
`
`2.
`
`I am over 18 years of age.
`
`3. Unless otherwise stated, I make this Declaration upon personal
`
`knowledge and experience.
`
`4.
`
`If called upon, I can competently testify to the facts stated in the
`
`Declaration.
`
`5. On February 24, 2015, Patent Owner served its objections to exhibits
`
`filed with the Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). A true and correct copy
`
`of those objections is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`The contents of this declaration are true under penalty of perjury of the laws of the
`
`United States.
`
`
`Executed September 14, 2015, in Denver, Colorado.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`67724567V.1
`
`Signature: s/ Kristopher L. Reed
`
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES P. CALVE, and HYUN J.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`Patent Owner Hunter Douglas, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) hereby objects
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, to the admissibility of the following exhibits
`
`submitted by Petitioner Norman International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`1. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1002 (“Tachikawa”), 1004 (“Skidmore”), 1005
`
`(“Schuetz”), 1007 (“Todd”), and 1008 (“Toti”) are inadmissible as each
`
`is irrelevant. In its Institution of Inter Partes Review Decision, the Board
`
`determined that trial should not be instituted on the grounds advocated by
`
`Petitioner that refer to these exhibits. (Paper 9 at 10-17, 21-23.) These
`
`exhibits are accordingly irrelevant and immaterial.
`
`2. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1009 (“Carlson Declaration”) is inadmissible as it
`
`fails to show that Lawrence E. Carlson is an expert in the relevant field of
`
`art pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Mr. Carlson claims that he
`
`is qualified to opine as an expert because of his “40 years educating
`
`engineering students on mechanical and component design” and “40
`
`years of experience in mechanical design and research in numerous
`
`fields, including rehabilitation engineering, upper-limb prosthetics,
`
`consumer products, sculptures, and products to help developing
`
`countries.” Ex. 1009 at ¶¶ 17-23. Those self-serving conclusions are
`
`undermined by a review of Mr. Carlson’s curriculum vitae and his own
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`description of his experience. An informed reading of those materials
`
`reveals that he has had no relevant experience with window covers. Id.
`
`Indeed, Mr. Carlson’s field of expertise appears to be in human limb
`
`prosthetics. Id.; see also Attachment A. Thus, Mr. Carlson has not
`
`established that he is an expert in the relevant art and has not
`
`demonstrated that he has personal knowledge about the art or the issues
`
`on which he offers testimony. (FRE 602, 702, 703.) Accordingly,
`
`Exhibit 1009 is inadmissible because Mr. Carlson is not qualified to
`
`testify regarding the field of invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884 at the
`
`time that the patent was filed.
`
`3. Portions of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1009, moreover, are inadmissible because
`
`they are hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Specifically, Attachments B
`
`and C to Exhibit 1009 purport to be pages from various textbooks—J.
`
`Shigley & C. Mischke, Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th ed. (1989)
`
`and J. Shigley & C. Mischke, Standard Handbook of Machine Design
`
`(1986). Attachments B and C are proffered to prove the truth of the
`
`matter(s) asserted in the textbooks. Attachments B and C do not qualify
`
`for any exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay under FRE 803.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1010 (“Foley Declaration”) is inadmissible as it fails
`
`to show that Patrick E. Foley is an expert in the relevant field of art
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. First, Mr. Foley admits that
`
`his current occupation as an Engineering Manager with Blount
`
`International, Inc. is “outside of technologies for window blinds and
`
`coverings.” (Exhibit 1010 at ¶ 1.) Second, Mr. Foley admits that he had
`
`no experience with window covers until a number of years after the time
`
`of the invention of the ‘884 Patent. As such, Mr. Foley has not
`
`established that he is an expert in the relevant art and has not
`
`demonstrated that he has personal knowledge about the art or the issues
`
`on which he offers testimony. (FRE 602, 702, 703.) Accordingly,
`
`Exhibit 1010 is inadmissible because Mr. Foley is not qualified to testify
`
`regarding the field of invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884 at the time
`
`that the patent was filed.
`
`5. Portions of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1010, moreover, are inadmissible because
`
`they are irrelevant. Specifically, Attachments C-G to Exhibit 1010 are
`
`United States Patents that include Otto Kuhar as an inventor. Petitioner
`
`provides no purported relevance for these patents. Accordingly, they are
`
`irrelevant and immaterial to the limited grounds instituted by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,884
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: Kristopher L. Reed
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Registration No. 58694
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,698,884
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) has been served February 24, 2015 via electronic service:
`
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1900 16th St., Suite 1400
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`
`Email: kmerrill@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`Bing Ai
`Perkins Coie LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`Email: Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`norman-hd-ipr@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 24, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Kristopher L. Reed
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Registration No. 58694
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Telephone: 303-571-4000
`Fax: 303-571-4321
`Email: HD-Norman-IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`66923533V.1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
