`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`and NETAPP, INC.
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01207
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`____________
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 2311 (Chronology Table)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Ex.2311 is “merely a summary demonstrative
`
`exhibit.” Paper 64 at 2. However, Ex. 2311 includes assertions that are nowhere
`
`contained in the Patent Owner Response. For instance, Patent Owner’s response
`
`nowhere alleges that the “conception of access controls and virtual local storage”
`
`occurred on March 22, 1997, as alleged in Ex. 2311. See Ex. 2311 at 1, Paper 29
`
`at 21-22. As another example, the response does not lay out the chronology of
`
`events considered to be most relevant to the conception and diligence. See id.
`
`That chronology of events is set forth only in Exhibit 2311. For these reasons Ex.
`
`2311 incorporates by reference assertions not contained in the Patent Owner’s
`
`response, in contravention of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioners’ argument that Exhibit 2311
`
`contains hearsay outside any recognized exception. Rule 1006 permits use of
`
`summaries but does not exempt summaries from the hearsay rules. BP Amoco
`
`Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Res., LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131268, *4.
`
`II. Exhibits 2300-2304, 2306-2310 and 2312-2323
`(Documents Offered to Show Prior Invention)
`
`Patent Owner fails to identify any testimony of a person with personal
`
`knowledge of Crossroad’s record-keeping practices in 1997, the year in which the
`
`documents were created and initially stored as alleged business records. Even in
`
`
`
`
`
`the case cited by Patent Owner the proponent offered the testimony of a witness
`
`with first-hand knowledge of the business’ record keeping practices at the time in
`
`question. BetterBags, Inc. v. Redi Bag USA LLC, C.A. No. H-09-3093, 2011 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 130525, at *21-23 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2011). The testimony
`
`proffered by Crossroads cannot establish that Exhibits 2300-2304, 2306-2310 or
`
`2312-2323 are business records under Rule 803(6).
`
`Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s argument that Exhibits 2303
`
`and 2323 are letters from patent counsel and thus cannot be said to be records of
`
`business activity regularly conducted by Crossroads. Paper 64 at 6. Like
`
`laboratory notebooks discussed in Alpert v. Slatin, letters from counsel concerning
`
`a patent application cannot be said to be records of Crossroads’ regularly
`
`conducted business activity. 305 F.2d 891, 895-96 (CCPA 1962).
`
`With regard to Exhibits 2307 and 2308, Patent Owner does not contest that
`
`the documents were prepared by the president of a company named Infinity
`
`CommStor, LLC or that the record contains no evidence demonstrating the role of
`
`Infinity CommStor or its relationship, if any, with Crossroads. See Paper 64 at 8.
`
`Patent Owner merely responds that Petitioner did not sufficiently specify its
`
`authenticity objection. Id. To the contrary, Petitioner specifically stated that “the
`
`exhibits have not been properly authenticated (FRE 901).” Ex. 1236 at 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not point to any citations in the Response to Exhibits
`
`2312 or 2316- 2320. Paper 64 at 8-9. Rather, those citations are provided only in
`
`Ex. 2311. Accordingly, use of these exhibits would constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`With respect to Exhibits 2301, 2302, 2304, 2306 and 2310 (trial and
`
`deposition transcripts from the Chaparral/Pathlight litigation) Patent Owner
`
`identifies no evidence that any of the witnesses are actually unavailable, which is a
`
`requirement of Rule 804. See Paper 64 at 11-13. The closest Patent Owner comes
`
`is an assertion that Mr. Peterman could not remember certain facts. Paper 64 at 11.
`
`The precedents cited by Patent Owner are inapposite, as they involve cases in
`
`which the unavailability of the declarant was demonstrated. See Lloyd v. American
`
`Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179, 1184 (3d Cir. 1978); Horne v. Owens-Corning
`
`Fiberglas Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 282-283 (4th Cir. 1993). Moreover, the patent at
`
`issue in this IPR did not even exist at the time the earlier testimony was taken. It
`
`therefore could not be said that the previous litigant had a “like motive to cross-
`
`examine about the same matters as the present party would have,” as suggested by
`
`Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., 580 F.2d 1179, 1187 (3d Cir. 1978)
`
`(emphasis added). In the Chaparral/Pathlight litigation the patent was different,
`
`the claimed subject matter was different, and the proof required to demonstrate
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`conception and diligence was thus necessarily different. The prior testimony was
`
`not concerning the “same matter” as required by Lloyd.
`
`Turning to Exhibit 2313, Patent Owner’s Response fails to provide any page
`
`citations to Exhibit 2313. Paper 64 at 14. Ex. 2313 should be excluded because
`
`use of this exhibit now would be improper incorporation by reference.
`
`III.
`
`Exhibit 2050 (Schedule of License Agreements)
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that it failed to identify any testimony
`
`attesting to the accuracy of the information set forth in the last two columns of
`
`Exhibit 2050. Accordingly, Exhibit 2050 cannot be admitted as a summary under
`
`FRE 1006 or otherwise. BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Res., LLC, 2009 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 131268, *4 (After meeting the threshold “voluminous and
`
`inconvenient" requirement, the proponent of a summary must establish that there is
`
`a proper foundation as to the admissibility of the material that is summarized.
`
`Additionally, the proponent must demonstrate that the summary is accurate.)
`
`(internal citations omitted, emphasis added).
`
`IV. Exhibits 2044-45 (Sales Information) and Ex. 2043 (Bianchi
`Declaration) ¶6
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Mr. Bianchi admitted that neither
`
`Exhibit 2044 nor Exhibit 2045 were prepared in the ordinary course of
`
`Crossroads’ business. Id. at 163:24-164:10. Patent Owner also does not contest
`
`that, although these exhibits are presented as evidence of a sales trend which
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`allegedly suggests that customers preferred routers (which allegedly had the
`
`claimed “access controls”) to bridges (which lacked them), Mr. Bianchi admitted
`
`that he did not even consider the effect of competitive products or any of the other
`
`factors that Crossroads believed could have impacted bridge and router sales,
`
`including OEM endorsement, product reliability, interoperability, customer
`
`service, technical support, brand awareness, ability to meet delivery schedules, or
`
`strength of distribution channel. Paper 64 at 15, Ex. 1221 at 127:9-129:16. Patent
`
`Owner similarly fails to address how Mr. Bianchi is an expert competent to testify
`
`concerning market demand for the products in question. Paper 64 at 15.
`
`V. Exhibits 2035-36 (Awards)
`Patent Owner’s opposition to the motion to exclude does not even address
`
`Exhibits 2035-36 and, for that reason, fails to provide any explanation of what
`
`relevance or nexus these exhibits might have to the claimed subject matter.
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir.) (in
`
`order to be of probative value, there must be a factually and legally sufficient
`
`connection between the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed
`
`invention). Patent Owner also does not dispute that the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`fails to discuss or even cite these exhibits. Use of these exhibits now would be
`
`improper incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Greg H. Gardella/
`
`Greg H. Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of the
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE on the
`
`counsel of record for the Patent Owner by filing this document through the Patent
`
`Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to the
`
`following addresses:
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`John Adair
`Scott Crocker
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James H. Hall
`Keith Rutherford
`BLANK ROME LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@blankrome.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045)
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 13, 2015