Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: June 20, 2016
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC., and
`BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010471
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp IP, LLC, who filed petitions in IPR2016-00063 and
`IPR2016-00167, respectively, have been joined as Petitioners in the instant
`proceeding.
`
`
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: June 20, 2016
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., APPLE INC., and
`BLACK SWAMP IP, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010471
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. and Black Swamp IP, LLC, who filed petitions in IPR2016-00063 and
`IPR2016-00167, respectively, have been joined as Petitioners in the instant
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Exhibits 1029 and 1031-1033 Should Be Excluded ........................................ 1
`
`Exhibits 1034, 1037, and 1039-1042 Should Be Excluded ............................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Exhibits 1012, 1013 and 1044 Should Be Excluded ....................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Conoco Inc. v. DOE,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Doe v. United States,
`976 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 1
`
`People v. Bowers,
`801 P.2d 511 (Colo.1990) ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Actifio, Inc., v. Delphix Corp.,
` IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 (Apr. 29, 2016) ................................................... 5
`
`IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
` IPR2015-00089, Paper No. 44 (Apr. 25, 2016) ................................................... 2
`
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
` IPR2014-00724, Paper 41 (Nov. 5, 2015) ........................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 803 .................................................................................... 4
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 807 ............................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 .................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`On June 13, 2016, Petitioners’ filed an Opposition (Paper No. 68) to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 66). Petitioners, however, provide
`
`insufficient reasons for admitting the exhibits at issue, i.e., Exhibits 1012, 1013,
`
`1029, 1031-1034, 1037, 1039-1042 and 1044.2 As such, Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Exclude should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 1029 and 1031-1033 Should Be Excluded
`
`Petitioners argue Exhibits 1029 and 1031-1033 should be admitted under the
`
`residual exception of Fed. R. Evid. 807 and assert that courts have “wide
`
`discretion” in applying this exception. Paper No. 68 at 1. However, “Congress
`
`intended that the residual exception[] be used sparingly” and any “discretion is
`
`‘tempered by the requirement that the exception be reserved for exceptional
`
`cases.’” Doe v. United States, 976 F.2d 1071, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992). Indeed, a
`
`sworn declaration assumed to be trustworthy was recently excluded. Pozen Inc. v.
`
`Par Pharm., Inc., 696 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (even if the declaration
`
`at issue was trustworthy, “this is not an exceptional case and thus does not warrant
`
`the residual hearsay exception”).
`
`The statements in Exhibits 1029 and 1031-1033 do not meet the five
`
`requirements of Rule 807. Paper 66 at 4, 5. Petitioners argue Ms. Ginoza’s
`
`2 Patent Owner withdraws its request to exclude Exhibits 1010 and 1014 as lacking
`
`relevance.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`statements in Exhibits 1029 and 1031 are corroborated by and corroborate the
`
`statements in Exhibits 1032 and 1033 (Ex. 1032 at 9; Ex. 1033 at 3) relating to the
`
`availability of RFCs from the IETF website that Petitioners rely on for their truth.3
`
`Paper No. 68 at 2-4. This circular analysis must be rejected. “[T]he corroborative-
`
`evidence requirement cannot be satisfied by using one or several . . . hearsay
`
`statements to corroborate . . . another hearsay statement.” People v. Bowers, 801
`
`P.2d 511, 527 (Colo. 1990). No evidence corroborates Ms. Ginoza’s statements,
`
`and no evidence corroborates the statements in Exhibits 1032 and 1033.
`
`Petitioners next argue Dr. Guerin’s declaration corroborates Ms. Ginoza’s
`
`statements. Paper No. 68 at 7-8 (citing IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00089, Paper No. 44 (Apr. 25, 2016)). IBM does not support Petitioners’
`
`position. In IBM, an Internet Archive manager provided an affidavit accompanied
`
`with objective evidence establishing the publication date of the non-patent
`
`literature in dispute. IBM, Paper No. 44 at 53-54. The Board relied on this
`
`affidavit as evidence corroborating non-declarant hearsay statements regarding the
`
`publication date. Id. at 53-57. In stark contrast, Dr. Guerin, which Petitioners
`
`
`3 Petitioners assert that Exhibits 1032 and 1033 are being submitted for another
`
`purpose as well and should be admitted. Paper No. 68 at 2 n.2. Patent Owner
`
`disagrees as these exhibits are being submitted for their truth. Paper No. 48 at 43.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`analogize to the Internet Archive manager in IBM, has not provided any objective
`
`evidence establishing the publication dates of the RFCs in dispute.
`
`Petitioners next argue Ms. Ginoza is capable of authenticating business
`
`records. Paper No. 68 at 8. But Petitioners have not asserted, let alone established,
`
`that the RFCs are business records subject to the business record exception.
`
`Petitioners also miss that Ms. Ginoza failed to produce any records that support her
`
`statements, and could not explain the basis for her statements. Paper No. 66 at 4.
`
`Petitioners do not deny that that they could have contacted the authors of the
`
`disputed documents to obtain more probative evidence as to their alleged
`
`publication dates. Paper No. 68 at 8. Thus, Exhibits 1029 and 1031-1033
`
`constitute hearsay with no exception.
`
`II. Exhibits 1034, 1037, and 1039-1042 Should Be Excluded
`Petitioners assert that Exhibits 1037, 1041 and 1042 are “not [relied on] for
`
`the truth of their contents.” Paper No. 68 at 8. This is incorrect. Petitioners rely
`
`on these exhibits for their alleged truth. See, e.g., Paper No. 57 at 11 (relying on
`
`the alleged truth of Exhibit 1037 to “confirm Dr. Guerin’s opinion”), 20 (relying
`
`on the alleged truth of Exhibits 1041 and 1042 to show “RFC 2026 describes the
`
`same fundamental process described in predecessor RFCs”), 21 (relying on the
`
`alleged truth of Exhibits 1040 and 1041 being authored by Dr. Tamassia).
`
`Petitioners next contend that Exhibits 1037, 1041 and 1042 fall under the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`ancient documents exception, FRE 803(16). Paper No. 68 at 10. Exhibit 1037 was
`
`not 20 years old when it was offered; it is not an ancient document. See FRE
`
`901(b)(8)(C). Also, Petitioners have not established that the dates appearing on the
`
`cover pages of these Exhibits reflect the age of the Exhibits. In addition, this rule
`
`is limited to documents “whose authenticity is established.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(16).
`
`Petitioners have not established the authenticity of these Exhibits. See Compass
`
`Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00724, Paper 41 at 56 (Nov. 5,
`
`2015) (explaining that authenticity must be established regardless of whether it is
`
`explicitly challenged by the opposing party).
`
`Petitioners next argue that Exhibits 1034, 1037, and 1039-1042 fall under
`
`the commercial list exception, FRE 803(17). That is incorrect. Petitioners have
`
`not established that RFC documents are “generally relied on by the public or by
`
`persons in particular occupations” akin to the “newspaper market reports,
`
`telephone directories, and city directories” envisioned by FRE 803(17). Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 803(17) advisory comm. nn.
`
`Petitioners next argue that Exhibits 1034, 1037, and 1039-1042 fall under
`
`the residual exception, FRE 807. These exhibits explicitly state that “does not
`
`specify an Internet standard of any kind” (Ex. 1037 at 1; Ex. 1039 at 1; Ex. 1041 at
`
`1), and Exhibit 1040 is labelled as an “INTERNET DRAFT” (Ex. 1040 at 1).
`
`These statements undermine Petitioners’ bald assertion that these exhibits “are
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`standards that were prepared for and intended for adherence by the public” and
`
`“possess the requisite indicia of trustworthiness on their respective cover pages.”
`
`Paper No. 68 at 12.
`
`In addition, these exhibits are also not more probative on the point for which
`
`they are offered than other evidence Petitioners could have obtained through
`
`reasonable efforts. For example, Petitioners could have contacted the purported
`
`authors of these exhibits to obtain declarations. Admitting these exhibits is not “in
`
`the interests of justice,” as required by FRE 807. This is simply not one of those
`
`“exceptional” cases where admitting hearsay evidence under the residual exception
`
`is warranted. Conoco Inc. v. DOE, 99 F.3d 387, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`III.
`
` Exhibits 1012, 1013 and 1044 Should Be Excluded
`
`Exhibits 1012 and 1013 were not cited by Dr. Guerin (in Ex. 1003) as
`
`forming the basis for his positions that are relevant to this proceeding. See Actifio,
`
`Inc., v. Delphix Corp., IPR2015-00108, Paper No. 56 at 57 (Apr. 29, 2016)
`
`(excluding exhibits that were not relied upon). Thus, these exhibits should be
`
`excluded.
`
`Petitioners do not deny failing to rely on Exhibit 1044. See Paper No. 68 at
`
`15. It should thus be excluded as irrelevant.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: June 20, 2016
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX, Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 20th day of June 2016, a copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude was served
`
`electronically upon the following:
`
`Abraham Kasdan (akasdan@wiggin.com)
`Wiggin and Dana LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`IP@wiggin.com
`
`James T. Bailey (jtb@jtbaileylaw.com)
`504 W. 136th St. #1B
`New York, NY 10031
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott Border
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`Thomas H. Martin
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`Martin & Ferraro, LLP
`1557 Lake O’Pines Street, NE
`Hartville, Ohio 44632
`tmartin@martinferraro.com
`docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 20, 2016
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
