`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING
`COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-00021
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`606104.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics
`
`Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Sharp” or “Petitioner”) hereby submits the following objections to
`
`the evidence served on June 11, 2015 by Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation
`
`LLC (“Surpass” or “Patent Owner”) with Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation
`
`LLC’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (Paper 20).
`
`General Objections
`
`1.
`
`Sharp objects to the admissibility of the Declaration of William K.
`
`Bohannon (Ex. 2005, “Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration”) under Rules 702 and 703 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”) for failing to establish that he is qualified
`
`to provide the opinions offered. Mr. Bohannon also fails to provide any basis for
`
`many of his opinions. Thus, Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration is inadmissible as lacking
`
`the requisite underlying “sufficient facts or data” of F.R.E. 702(b), is not “the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods” under F.R.E. 702(c), and does not
`
`result from the reliable application of principles or methods to any related facts
`
`under F.R.E. 702(d). See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
`
`(1993); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`2.
`
`Sharp further objects to the relevance of Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration
`
`under F.R.E. 402. Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration consists of mere speculation and
`
`conclusory statements, which are not relevant.
`
`606104.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Sharp reserves the right to present further objections, as allowed by
`
`the applicable rules or other authority.
`
`Specific Objections
`
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Sharp makes the following
`
`specific objections to Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration. Since Patent Owner’s
`
`Response cites to Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration, these objections also apply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`1.
`
`Sharp objects to Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration as failing to disclose
`
`Mr. Bohannon’s experience as an expert witness and the history of his prior
`
`testimony and depositions, as required by F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). Mr. Bohannon’s
`
`curriculum vitae attached to Ex. 2005 as Appendix A refers to an “Addendum” for
`
`his litigation related experience, but no such “Addendum” was submitted by
`
`Surpass.
`
`2.
`
`Sharp objects to Paragraphs 14, 18-23, 25, 27-30 and 32-35 as failing
`
`to comply with the requirements for amending claims set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Specifically, through Mr. Bohannon, Surpass
`
`improperly seeks to amend the claims-at-issue, including introducing additional
`
`claim elements, under the guise of claim construction. Specifically, Surpass seeks
`
`to construe the phrase “to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of
`
`the panel” of Claim 4 to further require the performance of an “overdriving”
`
`606104.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`technique. (See, e.g., Ex. 2005, ¶¶26-30). This proposed construction, which seeks
`
`to add a limitation to the claims, is an improper attempt to bypass the Rules for
`
`amending claims, which, among other things, require Surpass to: (1) confer with
`
`the Board regarding the proposed amendment; and (2) file a motion to amend that
`
`complies with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)-(b). Surpass has not
`
`taken any of these steps, and is now precluded from doing so under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.121(a)(1).
`
`3.
`
`Sharp objects to Paragraphs 14, 18-23, 25, 27-30 and 32-35 of Mr.
`
`Bohannon’s Declaration under F.R.E. 402, 701, 702 and 703 as conclusory and
`
`unsupported by any facts or data and thus irrelevant and unrelated to the issues at
`
`hand. For instance, in the above paragraphs, Mr. Bohannon discusses an
`
`“overdriving” technique that is legally irrelevant to the claims-at-issue. Mr.
`
`Bohannon then draws improper legal and factual conclusions based upon these
`
`irrelevant facts, rendering his opinion unsupported and, thus, unreliable.
`
`4.
`
`Sharp objects to Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration as failing to comply
`
`with the requirements for a declaration in lieu of oath under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`
`
`606104.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN
`LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`Dated: June 18, 2015 By: /Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
` New York, New York
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero
`
` Registration No.: 29,403
`
`
`606104.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that on this
`
`18th day of June, 2015, a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`was served via e-mail on the counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the
`
`following e-mail addresses:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (whelge@dbjg.com)
`Donald L. Jackson (djackson@dbjg.com)
`Michael R. Casey (mcasey@dbjg.com)
`
`
`
`
`By: /Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
`Dated: June 18, 2015
` New York, New York Anthony F. Lo Cicero
` Registration No.: 29,403
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`606104.1
`
`5
`
`
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
