UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`Petitioner submits the following Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. Gary Frazier (“the Observations”),
`
`Paper 52. As explained in detail below, the Observations consistently and
`
`repeatedly mischaracterize Dr. Frazier’s testimony in an attempt to remedy Patent
`
`Owner’s failure to provide any qualified expert testimony to support its alleged
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Dr. Frazier’s actual testimony
`
`demonstrates that the “objective” evidence of non-obviousness proffered by Patent
`
`Owner fails to identify any relevant market size, is generally unreliable, and fails to
`
`actually establish commercial success, industry praise, or a long-felt need by those
`
`of skill in the art. Patent Owner’s failure to provide any expert opinion regarding
`
`the dozens of exhibits it has submitted cannot be remedied by the Observations’
`
`attempt to recast the scope and content of Dr. Frazier’s cross-examination
`
`testimony.
`
`
`
`Dr. Frazier opined on the insufficiency of Patent Owner’s evidence to
`
`demonstrate either: (1) the existence of secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness, or (2) that any commercial success was the result of the merits of the
`
`invention. Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 17-18. The Observations should be rejected to the extent
`
`that they attempt to remedy Patent Owner’s failure by mischaracterizing Dr.
`
`Frazier’s testimony.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`I. Patent Owner failed to provide any expert testimony regarding the
`relevant market, and Dr. Frazier’s opinions do not rely upon or require
`independent research.
`1.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier’s testimony in Exhibit 2075 at
`
`37:4-22, impeaches his testimony “regarding the uploading and hosting market
`
`from 1995 through 2004 as he stated that he relied on this research and document
`
`review.” Paper 52 at ¶ 1. This is flat wrong. During his deposition Dr. Frazier
`
`clearly testified “[t]hat research did not form the basis for anything that I opine
`
`on in my declaration -- my opinions.” Exhibit 2075 at 37:8-10 (emphasis added).
`
`As Dr. Frazier testified in his declaration, he “performed Internet research and
`
`document review to confirm [his] recollection of the image uploading and hosting
`
`market during the period of around 1995 through 2004.” Ex. 1018 at ¶ 7. Indeed,
`
`contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Dr. Frazier did not provide an opinion on the
`
`“uploading and hosting market.” Rather, Dr. Frazier provided his opinion that (1)
`
`“there is insufficient data and information in the exhibits and testimony provided
`
`by Summit 6 to support a conclusion that the Rimfire service resolved a long-felt
`
`customer need, achieved commercial success, or received industry praise” and (2)
`
`“even if one were to assume that the Rimfire service did resolve a long-felt
`
`customer need, achieve commercial success, or receive industry praise, the exhibits
`
`and testimony establish that these claimed accomplishments were just as likely the
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`result of factors other than the merits of the Rimfire service.” Exhibit 1018 at ¶¶
`
`17-18.
`
`II. Patent Owner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish long-felt
`need, and Dr. Frazier’s opinion analyzed this evidentiary failure.
`2.
`
`Dr. Frazier did not testify as to any facts regarding the means by
`
`which eBay selected its vendors, eBay’s size in the market, or the methodology
`
`employed by the researcher(s) who drafted Exhibit 2015. The only facts Dr.
`
`Frazier confirmed were (1) the failure of Patent Owner’s evidence to support any
`
`claimed long-felt need existed, and (2) the unreliability and lack of source data of
`
`Exhibit 2015. Ex. 2075 at 25:13-16 (“[A]gain, on page 2 they put a disclaimer in
`
`and – ‘Use at your own risk.’ Also, secondly, I didn't have the underlying data. So
`
`I really didn't put too much credence into this report.”); 105:19-23 (“But, again, I
`
`did not find this information in this Exhibit 2015 persuasive based on disclaimers;
`
`based on it being incomplete; based on not having the survey or the data. It could
`
`have been one person's interpretation.”); 25:19-23 (“I read the report. It didn't
`
`really change my opinion that Summit 6 just didn't provide enough data and
`
`information for me as a marketing expert to conclude that the Rimfire service
`
`satisfied a long-felt but unresolved need.”). Further, Patent owner alleges that Dr.
`
`Frazier testified in Exhibit 2075, at 27:25 – 28:14, that Exhibit 2015 included its
`
`“methodology … which included a comprehensive questionnaire and interviews
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`with early adopters of image technology, such as eBay.” Paper 52 at ¶ 2. This is a
`
`mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Dr. Frazier merely acknowledged
`
`what was stated on the face of the document. See, e.g., Exhibit 2075 at 27:25 –
`
`28:4 (“Q: But at least taken at face value, it indicates that it followed a
`
`comprehensive questionnaire; correct? A: Where does it say that? Q: At the top of
`
`page 6. A: Yes, that’s what it says.” (emphasis added)). Dr. Frazier did not opine
`
`that the questionnaire was comprehensive or reliable. Rather, he testified that as a
`
`marketing expert he could not rely on other people’s characterizations of data. See
`
`Exhibit 2075 at 26:6-13 (“there are more pages eluded to than actually what
`
`constitute this, and I didn't have the underlying data…. I've just found that it's
`
`difficult for me as a marketing expert to rely on other people's characterization of
`
`the data if I don't have the underlying data.”). Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier
`
`testified in Exhibit 2075, at 28:18-25, that “‘[b]ased on size,’ eBay was the leading
`
`online marketplace for the sale of goods and services in 2001.” This is not what Dr.
`
`Frazier testified. Rather, Dr. Frazier testified: “[b]ased on size, I would likely
`
`agree, although I'd like to have more information on what other online services --
`
`auction services were available, but -- yeah, I would not dispute that.” Ex. 2075 at
`
`28:22 – 29:3 (emphasis added). Further, Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier
`
`“confirmed that eBay carried out a 4-6 month evaluation to select Rimfire over
`
`other market players.” Paper 52 at ¶ 2. This is a further mischaracterization of Dr.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`Frazier’s testimony. Once again, Dr. Frazier did not offer any opinion, rather, he
`
`merely acknowledged what was stated on the face of a document. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`2075 at 30:8-16 (“Q. And it says, again at page 10, that ‘eBay knew imaging
`
`technology was needed, and it wasn't a core competency, so it went looking for the
`
`right service provider’; true? A. It says that, yes. Q. And it goes on to say that
`
`‘eBay went through a long four to six months and thorough evaluation in making
`
`that selection’; true? A. Yes.” (emphasis added)).
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Frazier never confirmed that the Rimfire service solved any long-
`
`felt need experienced by those of skill in the art. And there are no facts on the
`
`record to support Patent Owner’s claim that Rimfire reduced eBay’s customer
`
`service costs. In an effort to remedy this failure of proof, Patent Owner alleges that
`
`Dr. Frazier testified, in Exhibit 2075 at 32:23 – 33:17, that “Exhibit 2015 refreshed
`
`his recollection that the patented Rimfire technology reduced eBay’s customer
`
`service cost.” Paper 52 at ¶ 3. This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s
`
`testimony. As with much of his testimony, Dr. Frazier merely acknowledged what
`
`was stated on the face of the document. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 33:14-17 (“Q: Does
`
`this refresh your recollection that the patented Rimfire technology reduced eBay's
`
`customer service cost? A: According to this document, yes.” (emphasis added)).
`
`Acknowledging what appears on the face of Exhibit 2015 does not confirm that the
`
`document is accurate or reliable. It is simply agreeing that words appear in the
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`document. This says nothing about what customer support problems eBay actually
`
`experienced, nor does it remedy Patent Owner’s failure to provide such evidence.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner states that in Exhibit 2075, at 40:24–41:17, Dr. Frazier
`
`testified that “as of October 12, 1999, eBay instructed its customers to associate or
`
`upload their images using the steps described in Exhibit 2070.” Paper 52 at ¶ 4.
`
`This is wrong. Dr. Frazier instead testified: “Q. So at least from that point until
`
`October of 1999, eBay was instructing -- been instructing sellers to associate or
`
`upload their images using the steps described in Exhibit 2070; correct? A. I'm not
`
`sure they did this from '95. All I know is that this was a snapshot from October 11
`
`and 12, 1999. So I'm not sure when they started this.” Ex. 2075 at 41:5-11
`
`(emphasis added). This is not testimony as to what eBay may or may not have
`
`instructed its customers to do. Dr. Frazier could not provide such testimony;
`
`indeed, he has testified that he never sold any items on eBay. Ex. 2075 at 40:19-21
`
`(“Q. Did you ever use -- did you ever sell any items on eBay? A. No.”).
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified, in Exhibit 2075 at
`
`28:18-25, that “with respect to the Exhibit 2072, Moore Data Management
`
`Services’ President stated in a published article, ‘This new technology can add real
`
`value to the service we offer our MLS subscribers’ and that the technology solved
`
`real estate agents’ previous need to submit photos through the mail.” Paper 52 at ¶
`
`5. This is wrong. Dr. Frazier’s testimony at 28:18-25 is unrelated to Exhibit 2072.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`Further, Dr. Frazier’s testimony later in the deposition only agrees that certain
`
`words appear in Exhibit 2072, an Exhibit that was first introduced at his
`
`deposition, and is therefore not referenced in any other paper in this proceeding.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 57:5-19. Further, Dr. Frazier made clear that he could not
`
`testify as to the functioning of Rimfire, because he is “not a technical expert.” Ex.
`
`2075 at 57:20-23.
`
`6.
`
` Dr. Frazier did not consider Patent Owner’s litigation licenses
`
`because those litigation-based agreements were entered into after Patent Owner no
`
`longer provided the Rimfire service, and therefore cannot be attributed to Rimfire’s
`
`alleged commercial success. Ex. 2075 at 17:18-22 (“My understanding was that the
`
`majority of the licensing agreements were based on legal proceedings, and in so,
`
`being a marketing expert and not a legal expert, I just didn't feel comfortable trying
`
`to get deep into the licensing aspects of the case.”). Dr. Frazier is an expert on
`
`marketing, not a lawyer. The fact that he did not consider Patent Owner’s litigation
`
`licenses makes his conclusions more credible. Patent Owner alleges that “Dr.
`
`Frazier ignores … Summit 6 licenses in opining that commercial success of the
`
`Summit 6 patents has not been shown.” Paper 52 at ¶ 6. This is a
`
`mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Dr. Frazier provided an opinion
`
`only as to the purported commercial success of the Rimfire service (i.e. the
`
`“invention” claimed by the patents), and did not opine as to the licensing of the
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`patents themselves. See, e.g., Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 15-16; Ex. 2075 at 17:18-22; see also
`
`Ex. 2075 at 18:15-22.
`
`7.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier “ignores [a] jury finding
`
`[against Samsung] in opining that ‘Summit 6 has not provided sufficient data and
`
`information to support a conclusion that the Rimfire service achieved commercial
`
`success.’ (Ex. 1018 at ¶ 25).” This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s
`
`testimony. Dr. Frazier provided an opinion only as to the purported commercial
`
`success of the Rimfire service (i.e. the “invention” claimed by the patents), and did
`
`not opine as to the success of the patents themselves. See, e.g., Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 15-
`
`16; Ex. 2075 at 18:15-22 (“A: I didn't consider that when I came to the conclusion
`
`that I didn't have enough information to judge whether or not Rimfire service had
`
`achieved commercial success. I'm not saying it didn't. I'm just saying as a
`
`marketing expert I did not have enough data or information to conclude, like
`
`Summit, that commercial success was achieved by the Rimfire service.”).
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner conflates its own total failure to provide any evidence
`
`of market share with Dr. Frazier’s observation that what little evidence Patent
`
`Owner actually provided was insufficient to demonstrate commercial success.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified, in Exhibit 2075 at 18:24-19:6, “that
`
`he did not have sufficient context to apply the $8 million fee that eBay paid for
`
`Rimfire technology.” Paper 52 at ¶ 8. This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`testimony. Dr. Frazier testified that he considered the $8 million fee, but because it
`
`is not given with any context, e.g., the size of a market, that figure alone does not
`
`establish commercial success. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 19:3-6 (“A: The eBay
`
`relationship I considered. But, again, without context, 44 million, 8 million, to me
`
`it's difficult to use such figures to -- as evidence and to prove that commercial
`
`success was achieved.”); see also Ex. 2075 at 61:1:6 (“as a marketing expert I don't
`
`believe I have enough information from Summit to clearly -- I just don't think
`
`there's enough data to support the fact that it was a commercial success. I need
`
`market share data and competitor information, and I don't have that.)
`
`III.
`
`It is not Dr. Frazier’s responsibility to argue Patent Owner’s case or
`present Patent Owner’s evidence.
`9.
`
`The Observations present the testimony of Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`and suggest that this attorney argument is in fact Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Patent
`
`Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified, in Exhibit 2075 at 69:15-17, that he agreed
`
`“page 9 of Exhibit 2044 ‘shows consistent revenue growth quarter over quarter.’”
`
`Paper 52 at ¶ 9. This mischaracterizes Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Dr. Frazier merely
`
`acknowledged what was stated on the face of the document. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at
`
`69:9-17 (“Q: And then growing to 4.5 million in Q2 of 2002? A: Yes, I see that. Q:
`
`And then all the way out to the next -- if you go to the next page, it -- showing Q4
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`2003, 13.2 million in revenue? A: I see that, yes. Q: So at least shows consistent
`
`revenue growth quarter over quarter; true? A: Sure.”).
`
`10. Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified, in Exhibit 2075, on
`
`80:17 – 81:21, that “according to pages 4 and 6 of Exhibit 2044, as the penetration
`
`rate of eBay listings with pictures increased from 8 percent in 2000 to 50 percent in
`
`2002, the average revenue per listing also increased.” Paper 52 at ¶ 10. This
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Dr. Frazier instead testified that the
`
`growth was slight and marginal. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 81:5-16 (“Q: And so
`
`penetration rate was going up at the same time that revenue per listing was going
`
`up; true? According to Slide 6? A: Slightly, yeah. Going up from the second
`
`quarter of 2001 27 cents; and then third quarter of 2001, 36 cents; fourth quarter,
`
`37 cents; 2001, first quarter, 39; second quarter, 39.· Going up a little bit,
`
`apparently. Q: So more people are using it, and eBay is able to charge more money
`
`for each use; true? … THE WITNESS: Marginally, yes, it's increasing.”).
`
`11. Again, Patent Owner attributes the testimony of its counsel and
`
`statements within Exhibits to Dr. Frazier. Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier, in
`
`Exhibit 2075, on 95:5 – 99:4, “confirmed that the $883 million figure consitutes
`
`[sic] the total spend for newspaper classifieds [sic] ads in 2004, but Admission
`
`only expects its addressable market of obtainable revenue to be $1.2 million.
`
`Admission’s market share thus equates to its percentage of the total $1.2 million.”
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`Paper 52 at ¶ 11. Here Dr. Frazier is not testifying. Patent Owner’s counsel was
`
`testifying, without asking questions. Indeed, the witness asked a question, which
`
`Patent Owner’s attorney answered. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 96:8-21 (“Q: Okay. Let
`
`me just try to explain it to you again. So if you take the 883 -- let's just focus on
`
`newspaper classified. A: Right, uh-huh. Q: Okay. That's the total spend for
`
`newspaper classified ads in 2004. A: Right. Q: Okay? Of that, 30 percent pay for –
`
`are enhanced ads? A: And does that come from actual data, or is that a projection
`
`of some sort? Q: I think this is a projection.” (emphasis added)). The fact that Dr.
`
`Frazier listened to counsel’s lecture, and that counsel answered one of Dr. Frazier’s
`
`questions, does not mean that Dr. Frazier adopted any of this attorney argument as
`
`his own testimony.
`
`12. Patent Owner again mischaracterizes Dr. Frazier’s testimony in an
`
`attempt to salvage its unsupported theory that any success of eBay equates to
`
`commercial success of Rimfire. Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified in
`
`Exhibit 2075, on 28:18-25, that “‘[b]ased on size,’ eBay was the leading online
`
`marketplace for the sale of goods and services in 2001.” Paper 52 at ¶ 12. This was
`
`not Dr. Frazier’s testimony. Rather, he testified: “Q: And you have no basis to
`
`dispute that characterization that eBay was the leading online marketplace for the
`
`sale of goods and services in 2001? A: Based on size, I would likely agree,
`
`although I'd like to have more information on what other online services -- auction
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`services were available, but -- yeah, I would not dispute that.” Ex. 2075 at 28:22 –
`
`29:3. Further, Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified that “outside of
`
`manual configurations from users, eBay would not adopt another image service
`
`into their website.” Paper 52 at ¶ 12. This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Frazier’s
`
`testimony. Dr. Frazier instead testified that the document says what it says. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2075 at 46:4-8 (“Q: Meaning they don't foreclose the option of a user
`
`manually configuring it, but eBay won't design someone else's service into there
`
`[sic] ‘Sell Your Item’ page? …. THE WITNESS: That’s what it reads to me,
`
`yes.”). Indeed, Dr. Frazier testified that eBay users were not required to use the
`
`Summit 6 technology. See Ex. 2075 at 44:22-25 (“If a user decided to use some
`
`other means, they could do that, because eBay wouldn't want to discourage its
`
`users or create their dissatisfaction by being too forceful.”).
`
`13. The burden rests on Patent Owner to proffer credible evidence. Dr.
`
`Frazier observed that the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness lacks clarity. Ex.
`
`1018 at ¶ 27; Ex. 2075 at 62:4-6. Patent Owner mischaracterizes this statement in
`
`an attempt to revise evidence already on the record. Patent Owner alleges that Dr.
`
`Frazier testifies, in Exhibit 2075 at 61:8 – 63:13 and 65:3 – 66:8, that “what Sarah
`
`Pate meant by pBay becoming the ‘largest image hosting and distributing site for
`
`eBay’… would have had to include ‘largest image hosting and distributing site
`
`based on image uploads for eBay.” Paper 52 at ¶ 13. This is completely false.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`Indeed, Dr. Frazier testified that this information was not provided. Ex. 2075 at
`
`62:12-17 (“[I]f she would have said by … November '99, pBay became the largest
`
`image hosting and distributing site based on image uploads for eBay, if she would
`
`have clarified that. But I didn't see that.” (emphasis added)); 62:3-4 (“But I can't
`
`necessarily judge image uploads was the measure.” (emphasis added)). In fact,
`
`Dr. Frazier testified that “[Ms. Pate] makes a statement, ‘largest.’ It's unclear to me
`
`what she means by ‘largest’; how she based the largest conclusion.” Ex. 2075 at
`
`62:4-6. And further that he could not infer what Ms. Pate meant by the “largest.”
`
`See, e.g., Exhibit 2075, 63:5-13 (“Q: Would you agree with me that, given the
`
`context, the most reasonable inference to draw is that Ms. Pate was referring to the
`
`number of image uploads? …. THE WITNESS: The most reasonable inference.
`
`Let's see. I find that over time it's better not to make inferences, at least relating to
`
`whether one sentence is the foundation for another sentence.”).
`
`14. Patent Owner’s counsel asked Dr. Frazier to read a document, and
`
`then mischaracterizes Dr. Frazier’s testimony to suggest that Dr. Frazier agreed to
`
`the underlying facts therein. Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier testified that
`
`eBay achieved several benefits from its use of Rimfire.” Paper 52 at ¶ 14. This is
`
`false. Instead, it is clear that Dr. Frazier merely acknowledged what was stated on
`
`the face of the document. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 73:5-17 (“A: Based on this report
`
`and based upon those benefits, does that support complete satisfaction of eBay
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`with the service? It's difficult to say. There's no doubt eBay, according to this
`
`researcher, had benefits from the relationship with iPIX. Q: Including providing a
`
`better user experience? A: Correct. Q: Improved eBay’s core economics? A:
`
`That’s what it says.… Reduced customer support costs? A. That's also what this
`
`report says, right.” (emphasis added)).
`
`IV. Dr. Frazier properly discounted the evidentiary weight of an exhibit
`that disclaimed the accuracy of its own contents, was incomplete, lacked
`underlying data to support the claims made therein, and warned
`readers to “USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.”
`15. The only thing Dr. Frazier “confirmed” about Exhibit 2015 was that it
`
`had a bold disclaimer on the first page to “Use At Your Own Risk,” that there is no
`
`underlying data given, and that he cannot rely on someone else’s interpretation of
`
`data. Ex. 2015 at 2; Ex. 2075 at 25:13-16 (“[A]gain, on page 2 they put a
`
`disclaimer in and – ‘Use at your own risk.’ Also, secondly, I didn't have the
`
`underlying data. So I really didn't put too much credence into this report.”); 26:6-
`
`13 (“there are more pages eluded to than actually what constitute this, and I didn't
`
`have the underlying data…. I've just found that it's difficult for me as a marketing
`
`expert to rely on other people's characterization of the data if I don't have the
`
`underlying data.”);105:19-23 (“But, again, I did not find this information in this
`
`Exhibit 2015 persuasive based on disclaimers; based on it being incomplete; based
`
`on not having the survey or the data. It could have been one person's
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`interpretation.”). As such, Dr. Frazier properly discounted the weight of Exhibit
`
`2015. Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Frazier, in Exhibit 2075 at 102:5 – 107:21,
`
`“confirmed that Exhibit 2015 outlined the 4-6 month evaluation and purchase
`
`process for eBay’s image uploading service, including the fact that eBay conducted
`
`‘thorough diligence’ in making its selection, evaluated proposals from many
`
`vendors, and determined that ‘iPIX had the best technology for their needs,’ [and]
`
`felt the iPIX Rimfire technology was user-friendly.” Paper 52 at ¶ 15. This is
`
`wrong. Dr. Frazier did not confirm anything stated in Exhibit 2015 beyond what
`
`appeared on the face of the document. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 103:4-17 (“Q. Right.
`
`And it says that eBay conducted thorough diligence in making this selection; true?
`
`A. That's what it says, yes. Q. And it says that eBay determined that iPIX had the
`
`best technology for their needs; correct? A. That's what it says, yes…. Q. And it
`
`says that eBay -- one of the things that it found best suited was that the iPIX
`
`Rimfire technology was user-friendly; true? A. That's what it says, yes.”
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`John Alemanni
`Registration No. 47,384
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`John Alemanni
`Registration No. 47,384
`JAlemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
`Telephone: (336) 607-7311
`Fax: (336) 607-7500
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Michael Morlock
`Registration No. 62,245
`MMorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
`Telephone: (336) 607-7391
`Fax: (336) 607-7500
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian Erickson
`Registration No. 48,895
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Brian Erickson
`Reg. No. 48,895
`Samsung_Summit-IPR@dlapiper.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 457-7059 (phone)
`(512) 457-7001 (fax)
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`James M. Heintz
`Reg. No. 41,828
`Jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 773-4148 (phone)
`(703) 773-5200 (fax)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-00806
`7,765,482
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this PETITIONERS’
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION has been served via electronic mail on April 13, 2016,
`
`upon the following:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`peter@leehayes.com
`John Shumaker
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`Brian Mangum
`brianm@leehayes.com
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`11501 Alterra Parkway, Suite 450
`Austin, TX 78758
`
`
`
`Date: April 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`John C. Alemanni (Reg. No. 47,384)
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
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
