UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`_______________
`
`PETITONERS' OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER'S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners submit the following objections to the
`
`evidence served by Patent Owner on November 24, 2015 with Patent Owner Surpass Tech
`
`Innovation LLC's Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (Paper 21)(the "Patent Owner's
`
`Response").
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2007, Transcript for the Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph. D.
`
`dated November 13, 2015, in IPR2015-00885, under Fed. R. Evid. 802 as Dr. Zech's testimony is
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Dr. Zech did not testify on direct (through a declaration) at the current
`
`trial, i.e., IPR2015-00863, but instead testified at an unrelated trial, IPR2015-00885, and was
`
`cross examined at a deposition in that unrelated trial. Petitioners in this trial are not parties in
`
`IPR2015-0885, were not present at the deposition of Dr. Zech, and did not have the opportunity
`
`to question Dr. Zech. Dr. Zech's deposition testimony is being offered by Patent Owner to prove
`
`the truth of the matter asserted, at, for example, Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC's
`
`Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (Paper 21), page 5, footnote 2, pages 6-7, pages 15-16, and
`
`page 19.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2018, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2008/0106540 under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403. Exhibit 2018 was originally marked as Exhibit
`
`A and presented to Thomas Credelle during his deposition dated October 28, 2015. Petitioners'
`
`objected to Exhibit A both during Mr. Credelle's deposition, and also in Paper 20, Petitioners'
`
`Objection to Evidence, filed on November 4, 2015. As set forth in Petitioners' Objection to
`
`Evidence filed on November 4, 2015, the filing date of Exhibit 2018 is 2006, and, thus, the
`
`content of Exhibit 2018 would not have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the 2003 claimed priority date of the U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the "'843 patent"), and,
`
`therefore, would not have been within the knowledge base of such a person so as to form part of
`
`

`
`his or her level of skill as of 2003. Thus, Exhibit 2018 is irrelevant. Moreover, even assuming for
`
`the sake of argument that Exhibit 2018 might be considered relevant on some theory, whatever
`
`probative value it might have is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and
`
`confusion of the issues, since it did not exist until well after the claimed priority date of the '843
`
`patent. Accordingly, Exhibit 2018 is inadmissible.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2019, U.S. Patent No. 5,642,133, and Exhibit 2020, U.S.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,280,280 under Fed. R. Evid. 402. The Patent Owner's Response relies on these
`
`exhibits purportedly to show that an overdriving technique can be applied to passive matrix LCD
`
`panels in addition to active matrix LCD panels. However, whether or not the overdriving
`
`technique can also be applied to passive matrix LCD panels is not relevant to the issue of
`
`whether or not it would be obvious to apply the overdriving technique to active matrix LCD
`
`panels. Moreover, neither Exhibit 2019 nor Exhibit 2020 relates to overdriving at all. Both
`
`relate to the improvement of grayscale on passive massive panels. Thus, these exhibits are not
`
`relevant to the proposition for which they are cited. For at least these reasons, Exhibits 2019 and
`
`2020 are not relevant, and are thus inadmissible.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2021, U.S. Patent No. 6,606,248 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`402 and 403. The Patent Owner's Response relies on Exhibit 2021 purportedly to show that one
`
`indicator of passive matrix vs. active matrix is the substrate on which the driver electronics is
`
`arranged. However, the passage in Exhibit 2021 upon which the Patent Owner's Response relies
`
`describes use of either glass and plastic substrates for both passive matrix and active matrix LCD
`
`panels. Thus, Exhibit 2021 is not relevant for the proposition for which it is cited. The Patent
`
`Owner's Response also relies on Exhibit 2021 purportedly to show the attachment location of
`
`driver circuits in active and passive matrix LCD panels, but the attachment location of the driver
`
`

`
`circuits is not relevant to any issue in this case. And, even assuming for the sake of argument
`
`that Exhibit 2021 might be considered relevant on some theory, whatever probative value it
`
`might have is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the
`
`issues since it does not describe the subject matter that the Patent Owner's Response alleges, and
`
`is irrelevant. Thus, Exhibit 2021 is inadmissible.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2022, Declaration of William K. Bohannon In Response
`
`To Petition of Sony Corporation Et Al., under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703 as Surpass has not
`
`established that Mr. Bohannon is either an expert in the relevant field of the '843 patent, or even
`
`has credentials that at least satisfy the standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art (of the '843
`
`patent), i.e., a bachelor's degree or equivalent in Electrical Engineering and approximately three
`
`to five years of experience in designing and developing LCD devices and LCD driving circuits.
`
`Because Surpass has not established that Mr. Bohannon is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
`
`skill, experience, training or education, his testimony will not help a trier of fact to understanding
`
`the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Accordingly, the opinions expressed by Dr.
`
`Bohannon are not relevant. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2022
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also object to ¶ 39 of Exhibit 2022 under Fed. R. Evid. 802 as relying on
`
`inadmissible hearsay. At paragraph 39, Mr. Bohannon bases his belief regarding "hold drive"
`
`on the deposition testimony of Dr. Zech (Exhibit 2007), which, as set forth above, is
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Dated: December 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Michelle Carniaux/
`Michelle Carniaux
`Lead Counsel, Reg. No. 36,098
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway, New York, NY 10004
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on December
`
`2, 2015, the foregoing Petitioners' Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) is being served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for Patent Owner:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Donald L. Jackson
`Michael R. Casey
`whelge@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, L.L.P.
`8300 Greenboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`/Michelle Carniaux/
`Michelle Carniaux
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200