throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC. and JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Patent 9,039,982
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Precise Relief Requested ................................................................................. 2
`
`II.
`
`Paragraphs 26-30 of Dr. Tennent’s Declaration Recount His Personal
`
`Knowledge of the Industry. ............................................................................. 2
`
`III. The Cited prior art corroborateS dr. tennent’s recollection that there was a
`
`Demand for a High Porosity Filter That Could Accommodate a High
`
`Loading of an SCR Catalyst. ........................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Dr. Tennent’s Inability to disclose the Identity of Specific Customers Does
`
`Not Prejudice the Patent Owner. ..................................................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`I. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.64(c), Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`PLC oppose BASF Corporation’s (“Patent Owner’s”) motion to exclude and
`
`request that it be denied.
`
`II. PARAGRAPHS 26-30 OF DR. TENNENT’S DECLARATION
`RECOUNT HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY.
`For almost 30 years, Dr. Tennent designed and commercialized wall flow
`
`filters for Corning, one of the preeminent manufacturers of substrates in the
`
`industry. Tennent Decl., JM 1003, ¶ 2-10. From his own personal knowledge, he
`
`recounted how by 2002 Corning had received requests from auto and truck
`
`manufactures “to develop a filter that could accommodate a catalyst washcoat
`
`loading of between 100 g/L to 125 g/L,” which reflected a “move towards
`
`developing higher porosity filters, so that they could be combined with high
`
`catalyst loading.” Id. at ¶ 26. Specifically, Dr. Tennent personally observed a
`
`demand for a high porosity filter that could accommodate “a very high SCR
`
`washcoat loading” and still achieve acceptable backpressure. Id. at ¶ 26, 29.
`
`Dr. Tennent disclosed the underlying facts of his testimony: his own
`
`personal experience working in the relevant industry at the relevant time, where he
`
`received requests from auto and truck manufacturers for exactly that type of filter.
`
`Id. at ¶ 26. Patent Owner mischaracterizes his testimony as “generalized
`
`statements about an industry without underlying evidence.” Patent Owner’s
`
`2
`
`

`
`Motion to Exclude, 3. But in reality, the challenged testimony describes how Dr.
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`Tennent personally observed a demand for a specific type of wall flow filter that
`
`could accommodate a high SCR washcoat loading. No matter whether that
`
`testimony is characterized as fact testimony or expert testimony, it is based on Dr.
`
`Tennent’s own personal knowledge and, therefore, admissible. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`602 (fact witness may testify to a matter if the witness has “personal knowledge of
`
`the matter”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 703 (expert witness “may base an opinion on
`
`facts or data in the case that the expert has … personally observed”).
`
`Patent Owner cites two opinions, one from district court and one from the
`
`PTAB, but neither supports excluding Dr. Tennent’s testimony. In one, Rambus
`
`Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., the court excluded testimony where the expert
`
`offered conclusory testimony about long-felt need where he had “limited
`
`experience” in the relevant DRAM industry and his “involvement with the DRAM
`
`industry appears minimal and he has had no experience in marketing DRAMs and
`
`minimal [experience], at best, in designing them.” 254 F.R.D. 597, 608 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2008). The court recognized, however, that if the expert had “extensive experience
`
`in design or marketing in the DRAM industry,” then he would have been
`
`competent to offer an opinion about long-felt need. Id. Here, Dr. Tennent
`
`established his extensive experience developing wall flow filters, including serving
`
`as Research & Development Leader for the development and commercialization of
`
`3
`
`

`
`multiple new wall flow filters. Tennent Decl., JM 1004, ¶ 2-10. Thus, unlike the
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`expert in Rambus who had “at best” “minimal” relevant experience, Dr. Tennent
`
`has almost 30 years of experience designing and commercializing wall flow filters
`
`and had personally observed requests for a high porosity wall flow filter that could
`
`accommodate a high SCR washcoat loading.
`
`In the second opinion, Nestlé Purina Petcare Co. v. Oil-Dri Corp. of Am.,
`
`IPR2015-00737, two experts offered testimony about the content of specific
`
`compositions in the prior art, not on general trends in the relevant industry. Paper
`
`No. 37 at 17-18 (PTAB Jun. 20, 2016). Though the testimony “pertain[ed] to a
`
`physical composition that could be tested to determine its content, or about which
`
`specific information could be obtained,” neither expert did either. Id. Here, by
`
`contrast, Dr. Tennent provided specific underlying facts to his opinions, testifying
`
`that, “[b]ased on the requests that Corning received,” “auto and truck
`
`manufacturers were … trying to develop a filter that could accommodate a catalyst
`
`washcoat loading of between 100 g/L to 125 g/L.” Tennent Decl., JM 1004, ¶¶ 2-
`
`10.
`
`In paragraphs 26-30 of his declaration, Dr. Tennent recounts specific
`
`information from his own personal experience. Accordingly, that testimony is
`
`admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 602; see also Fed. R. Evid. 703.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`III. THE CITED PRIOR ART CORROBORATES DR. TENNENT’S
`RECOLLECTION THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR A HIGH
`POROSITY FILTER THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE A HIGH
`LOADING OF AN SCR CATALYST.
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Tennent failed “to give a single piece of
`
`evidence to substantiate his views” and his contention that the “skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated to combine a certain wall-flow filter with an SCR
`
`catalyst coating.” Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, 3. As discussed above, Dr.
`
`Tennent testified that his views came, in part, from his own personal knowledge
`
`and described receiving requests for those types of wall-flow filters. In addition to
`
`his own personal knowledge, however, Dr. Tennent also cited numerous prior art
`
`publications to support his testimony, which Patent Owner and its expert Dr.
`
`Crocker have consistently ignored.
`
`Hüthwohl (JM 1005) expressly describes how there was a motivation to put
`
`an SCR catalyst into a wall flow filter. Hüthwohl states that attaining the
`
`“excellent emission values” needed to meet future regulations could “only
`
`achieved by combining a particle filter with an SCR catalyst.” Id. at 3. Hüthwohl
`
`then notes the challenges of incorporating them as separate substrates into the
`
`limited space available, ultimately choosing to load the SCR catalyst into the wall-
`
`flow filter to save space, i.e., it adopts an arrangement where “the volume of the
`
`soot filter will be already utilized for the SCR reaction.” Id. Moreover, Hüthwohl
`
`actually built and tested its SCR-catalyzed wall-flow filter, feeling confident
`
`5
`
`

`
`enough in the results to put the catalyzed filter in everyday service in buses. Id. at
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`9.
`
`Patent Owner ignores that Hüthwohl built and tested an SCR-catalyzed wall-
`
`flow filter, and even put one into everyday service. See Patent Owner Response,
`
`§ IV.A (section heading; “The Skilled Artisan Would Not Have Been Motivated
`
`To Washcoat A Soot Filter With An SCR Catalyst ….”). Its expert, Dr. Crocker,
`
`also ignored Hüthwohl. See JM 1029, 159:23 (saying “all” prior art systems put
`
`the wall-flow filter first, followed by the SCR catalyst, instead of loading the SCR
`
`catalyst into the wall-flow filter like Hüthwohl). Yet even Dr. Crocker later
`
`admitted that it would be wrong to ignore Hüthwohl, but could provide no legally
`
`relevant reason for having done so. See id. at 160:1-23:
`
`Q And I think you said if you look at the literature around that
`time and also later, and you look at the system configurations that
`were being proposed, they all used that general configuration, DPF
`first, followed by a downstream SCR catalyst; right?
`A
`Correct.
`Q And you know from the record of this case, that’s wrong?
`A
` Well, I can only think of one case where that was not proposed,
`and that would have been Huthwohl in 1999, although that
`configuration was not adopted by the rest of the industry.
`Q But you said when you look at the system configurations that
`were being proposed at that time, they all used that general
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`configuration, DPF first, followed by a downstream SCR catalyst, and
`that's wrong?
`A
`I was referring to the time period of around 2003 and later.
`Q Okay.
`A
`Sorry if that wasn't clear.
`
`Dr. Tennent also cited the Speronello catalysts (JM 1007) which would have
`
`been the preferred SCR catalysts for use in Hüthwohl’s system. See Harold Decl.
`
`(JM 1004), ¶ 37-44. In fact, one of Patent Owner’s own patent applications, which
`
`is prior art here, describes an embodiment of the Speronello catalysts as “one of the
`
`best, most stable, SCR catalysts.” U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2002/0044897 (JM 1032),
`
`¶ 14, 93.
`
`Accommodating the “best, most stable” SCR catalysts into a wall-flow filter
`
`meant accommodating a washcoat loading of at least 100 g/L. The Speronello
`
`catalysts required a washcoat loading of at least 1.6 g/in3 (or a fraction under 100
`
`g/L after converting units). See, e.g., Speronello (JM 1007), col. 8, lines 57-60; see
`
`also Harold Decl. (JM 1004), ¶ 45 (describing how Speronello discloses between
`
`washcoat loadings of between 1.6 g/in3 and 2.0 g/in3). As the BASF Patents1
`
`
`1 “BASF Patents” refers to the patents in IPR2015-01265, -01266, and -
`
`01267, which are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,899,023, 9,039,982, and 9,032,709,
`
`respectively. All three patents share a specification. For convenience, Johnson
`
`7
`
`

`
`acknowledge, and as Dr. Tennent described in his declaration, wall-flow filters
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`with high catalyst loadings can lead to unacceptably high backpressure. ’982
`
`patent, col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 10; see also Tennent Decl. (JM 1003), ¶ 27-28.
`
`Dr. Tennent also relies on Hashimoto (JM 1007), which taught that its high
`
`porosity filter solved the backpressure problem for catalyst loadings of 100 g/L.
`
`Id. at ¶ 31; see also Hashimoto (JM 1007), 12-13. As Dr. Tennent testified, “the
`
`Hashimoto [filter] would have been the leading choice to accommodate 100 g/L of
`
`any catalyst washcoat.” Tennent Decl., ¶ 36. Hashimoto teaches that its high
`
`porosity filters were “prime candidates” for future catalyzed filter systems.
`
`Hashimoto (JM 1007), 13. The BASF Patents do nothing more than copy that
`
`teaching; the Hashimoto filter is the same filter (and only filter) mentioned in the
`
`shared specification of the BASF Patents. See Tennent Decl. (JM 1007), ¶ 32.
`
`Accordingly, as Dr. Tennent described in his declaration, the prior art
`
`confirms that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a high
`
`porosity filter, like the Hashimoto filter, that could accommodate at least 100 g/L
`
`of a catalyst washcoat.
`
`
`Matthey’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude in all three
`
`proceedings will cite to the specification of the ’982 patent.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`IV. DR. TENNENT’S INABILITY TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF
`SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE PATENT
`OWNER.
`Because of pre-existing confidentiality obligations, Dr. Tennent could not
`
`disclose one, and only one, type of detail: the names of the specific companies he
`
`worked with during his time at Corning. He never withheld any other information,
`
`e.g., the type of filter requested, its porosity or pore size, when it was requested,
`
`when it was delivered, how many were requested and delivered, or what level of
`
`backpressure the filters displayed. Thus, Patent Owner exaggerates when it says
`
`that Dr. Tennent “withheld all details and evidence that might relate to his
`
`opinions,” Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, 3. In reality, he withheld only the
`
`names of the specific companies.
`
`Patent Owner has not articulated how the precise identities of Corning’s
`
`customers would be relevant to the obviousness of the claims of the BASF Patents.
`
`Dr. Tennent did provide the relevant details (e.g., the characteristics of the filters)
`
`and was willing to discuss them on cross-examination. See Tennent Decl. (JM
`
`1003), ¶ 26 (Corning received requests from customers for filters that could
`
`accommodate a catalyst washcoat loading of between 100 g/L to 125 g/L); id. at 30
`
`(the filter industry believed that a porosity of 50% or higher was required). Those
`
`relevant details do not depend, in any way, on the precise identity of Corning’s
`
`customers.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr. Crocker, invoked similar confidentiality
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`agreements during his deposition. When deposed about the opinions in his report,
`
`Dr. Crocker actually went one step further than Dr. Tennent—not only did he
`
`withhold the name of the company, he also withheld details about what type of
`
`washcoat that unnamed company requested:
`
`Q
`For either the heavy-duty or light-duty application in
`connection with the ICT joint venture, can you tell me what washcoat
`or washcoats were being applied to the diesel particulate filter?
`A
`So you're asking me specifically what washcoat compositions
`were being used?
`Q M-hm.
`A
`I'm not sure I can really, in all conscience, disclose that
`information, bearing in mind that I did sign a confidentiality
`agreement in relation to this.
`
`JM 1029, 38:8-19. Dr. Crocker thus withheld even more information than
`Dr. Tennent had.
`Patent Owner had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tennent
`
`about the basis of his opinions and points to a single, irrelevant piece of
`
`information—the names of Corning’s customers—to manufacture grounds for
`
`excluding Dr. Tennent’s testimony.
`
`10
`
`

`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`motion to exclude paragraphs 26-30 of Dr. Tennent’s declaration.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /Gwilym J. O. Attwell, Reg. No. 45,449/
` Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
` Gwilym J. O. Attwell, Reg. No. 45,449
` Attorneys for Petitioners,
` Johnson Matthey Inc. and
` Johnson Matthey PLC
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Attorney Docket: 38411-0005IP1
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on August 8,
`
`2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude provided via e-mail, to the Patent Owner by serving the e-mail
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Anish R. Desai
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW
`Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email: brian.ferguson@weil.com
`Email: anish.desai@weil.com
`Email: BASF.IPR.2015.1266@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket