IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`
`By: Andy H. Chan, Reg. No. 56,893
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3602 (telephone)
`(650) 802-3650 (facsimile)
`chana@pepperlaw.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`IXI IP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 AND 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`
`By: Andy H. Chan, Reg. No. 56,893
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3602 (telephone)
`(650) 802-3650 (facsimile)
`chana@pepperlaw.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`IXI IP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 AND 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,295,532
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page(s)
`
`Exhibits 1002, 1014 and 1015 Should Be Excluded ...................................... 1
`Exhibits 1016 and 1017 Should Be Excluded ................................................ 2
`Exhibits 1016 and 1017 Are Inadmissible Pursuant to 37 C.F.R
`A.
`§ 42.123(b) ........................................................................................... 2
`Exhibit 1016 is Not Authenticated ....................................................... 3
`1.
`Exhibit 1016 is Not Self-Authenticated ..................................... 3
`2.
`Petitioner’s Declaration Fails to Authenticate Exhibit
`1016 ............................................................................................ 4
`Exhibit 1016 Constitutes Hearsay ........................................................ 4
`C.
`Exhibits 1016 and 1017 Are Not Relevant .......................................... 5
`D.
`III. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1720, 2015-1721, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711
`(Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016) .................................................................................. 2, 5
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01445 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2016) ........................................................ 2
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.123 .................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`FRE 401 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FRE 402 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FRE 403 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FRE 802 ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`FRE 803 ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`FRE 901 ................................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`FRE 902 ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Narayan Mandayam In Support Of IXI IP, LLC’s
`Patent Owner Response
`Deposition Transcript of Safye Kiaei, IPR2015-01443, March 15,
`2016
`Deposition Transcript of Safye Kiaei, IPR2015-01444, March 16,
`2016
`Deposition Transcript of Safye Kiaei, IPR2015-01445 – 1446, March
`17, 2016.
`Specification of the Bluetooth System, Specification Volume 1
`(December 1, 1999) (Bluetooth Specification)
`IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and
`Considerations,” RFC 2663, August 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. #
`
`2301
`
`2302
`
`2303
`
`2304
`
`2305
`
`2306
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`Petitioner bears the burden to prove a proposition of unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As discussed below and in
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion, Exhibits 1002, and 1014-1017 should be excluded.
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBITS 1002, 1014 AND 1015 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s allegation that Exhibits 1002,
`
`1014, and 1015 are inadmissible because they are not referenced or explained in
`
`the Petition or the Reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4).
`
`Further, Petitioner does not dispute that these exhibits constitute an improper
`
`attempt to circumvent the page limits for the Petition. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.24(a)(1)(i). As such, for at least these reasons, Exhibits 1002, 1014, and 1015
`
`should be excluded.
`
`Petitioner only challenges Patent Owner’s arguments that Exhibits 1002,
`
`1014, and 1015 are irrelevant and prejudicial. See Paper 24 at 2-3. Petitioner
`
`argues that the exhibits were cited in Dr. Kiaei’s Declaration (Exhibit 1003) and
`
`the relevant paragraphs of his declaration were cited in the Petition. See id.
`
`Petitioner’s citations to Dr. Kiaei’s Declaration do not identify how
`
`Petitioner intends to rely, if at all, on these exhibits. Petitioner’s failure to
`
`reference or explain these exhibits prejudices Patent Owner’s ability to evaluate
`
`their relevancy and prepare rebuttal arguments. As such Exhibits 1002, 1014, and
`
`1015 should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial under FRE 401, 402, 403.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`II. EXHIBITS 1016 AND 1017 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`A. Exhibits 1016 and 1017 Are Inadmissible Pursuant to 37 C.F.R §
`42.123(b)
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion is the proper mechanism to challenge Exhibits 1016
`
`and 1017, first introduced in Petitioner’s Reply. See Genzyme Therapeutic Prods.
`
`L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., Nos. 2015-1720, 2015-1721, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`10711, at *17 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2016). A reply does not provide the means for
`
`the Petitioner to supplement the evidence of record. See, e.g., Toshiba Corp. v.
`
`Optical Devices, LLC, Case IPR2014-01445, Paper 31 at 30 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2016).
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, Exhibits 1016 and 1017 constitute
`
`improper supplemental evidence, and are not proper reply evidence. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123(b). As explained in Patent Owner’s Motion, Exhibits 1016 and 1017 are
`
`not proper reply evidence because Petitioner uses these exhibits in an attempt to
`
`raise new issues and to rehabilitate its arguments. See Paper 21 at 2-5.
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibits 1016 and 1017 are proper reply evidence
`
`because they respond to Patent Owner’s arguments that: 1) the JINI LUS must be
`
`located on the master device of the Bluetooth piconet; 2) Marchand’s JINI
`
`technology does not teach plug and play as claimed by the patent at-issue; and 3)
`
`Marchand does not teach that any device can access a webpage. Paper 24 at 4-6.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments fail because for each argument identified, Petitioner
`
`was the first to raise the issue. First, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kiaei, was the first to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`identify that the JINI LUS 46 must be located on the master device of the
`
`Bluetooth piconet, not Patent Owner or Dr. Mandayam. Exhibit 2303 at 86:8-12
`
`(“The lookup service is located on the master device.”). Further, Petitioner’s
`
`argument in its Reply regarding multiple JINI LUSs has never been previously
`
`argued, has no basis in any of the alleged prior art or the challenged patent, and
`
`relies entirely on attorney argument. Second, Petitioner argued that Marchand’s
`
`JINI technology taught plug and play in the Petition. See Paper 2 at 42, 43, 50.
`
`Patent Owner’s discussion of Marchand’s JINI technology responded to
`
`Petitioner’s arguments, by identifying why Marchand’s JINI technology does not
`
`teach plug and play as claimed by the ’033 Patent. Third, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that Marchand does not teach that any device can access a webpage is
`
`also in response to Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition. See Paper 2 at 33.
`
`As such, Exhibits 1016 and 1017 are not proper reply evidence and should
`
`be excluded as improper supplemental evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.123(b).
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1016 is Not Authenticated
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1016 is Not Self-Authenticated
`
`Petitioner asserts that Exhibit 1016 is self-authenticating but makes no
`
`arguments regarding FRE 902, concerning “Evidence That is Self-Authenticating,”
`
`and instead focuses on FRE 901(b)(4), relating to authenticating evidence through
`
`distinctive characteristics. See Paper 24 at 7; FRE 902, 901(b)(4). Petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`asserts that Exhibit 1016 is “distinctive under the circumstances,” but fails to
`
`provide any reasoning as to why this exhibit should be considered distinctive or
`
`how it satisfies the requirements of FRE 901(b)(4). Paper 24 at 7. As such,
`
`Exhibit 1016 is not self-authenticating, and should be excluded for lack of
`
`authentication.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Declaration Fails to Authenticate Exhibit 1016
`
`After providing nothing in its Reply brief to support the admissibility of
`
`Exhibit 1016, Petitioner relies on a defective declaration from a declarant with no
`
`personal knowledge of the exhibit. See Exhibit 1020.
`
`The Sheldon-Hess Declaration fails to authenticate Exhibit 1016. Ms.
`
`Sheldon-Hess has no personal knowledge of Exhibit 1016 and admits that her
`
`opinions regarding Exhibit 1016 relied on a review of a similar, but different
`
`book—not a review of the reference constituting Exhibit 1016, as proffered by
`
`Petitioner. See Exhibit 1020 at ¶ 9. As such, the Sheldon-Hess Declaration does
`
`not authenticate Exhibit 1016, and it should be excluded under FRE 901.
`
`C. Exhibit 1016 Constitutes Hearsay
`Petitioner does not dispute that the date information appearing on Exhibit
`
`1016, alone, constitutes hearsay under FRE 802. Instead, Petitioner argues that the
`
`information should not be considered hearsay based on the Sheldon-Hess
`
`Declaration. Petitioner argues that the date information qualifies as a hearsay
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`exception under FRE 803(6) and (18). Paper 24 at 8. However, Petitioner fails to
`
`explain how FRE 803(6) or (18) applies to this exhibit. Further, Ms. Sheldon-Hess
`
`does not have personal knowledge of Exhibit 1016 and her opinions are
`
`unsupported. See Exhibit 1020 at ¶ 9. As such, Exhibit 1016 constitutes
`
`inadmissible hearsay and should be excluded.
`
`D. Exhibits 1016 and 1017 Are Not Relevant
`Patent Owner’s Motion is the proper mechanism to challenge Petitioner’s
`
`new, unsupported, and irrelevant exhibits. See Genzyme Therapeutic, 2016 U.S.
`
`App. LEXIS 10711 at *17. Petitioner first introduced Exhibits 1016 and 1017 in
`
`its Reply without any support to suggest that these exhibits are relevant.
`
`Petitioner provides only conclusory allegations that Exhibits 1016 and 1017
`
`demonstrate that alleged prior art references teach certain claim elements.
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any substantive detail supporting its allegations and
`
`provides no expert support. Petitioner’s conclusory allegations, based solely on
`
`attorney argument, fail to provide any basis for the conclusion that Exhibits 1016
`
`and 1017 are relevant to any of the facts in-issue.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Exhibits 1002, 1014, 1015, 1016, and 1017
`
`should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Andy H. Chan/
`By:
`Andy H. Chan, Reg. No. 56,893
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive,
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3600 (telephone)
`(650) 802-3650 (facsimile)
`
`George S. Haight IV, Reg. No. 54,146,
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5165 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`Dated: August 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August, 2016, a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c) was served on the following counsel
`
`for Petitioner via email:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Email: axf@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`
`Kevin Greene
`Email: IPR00035-0004IP1@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Indranil Mukerji
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`
`Katherine A. Vidal
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 650-839-5084
`Fax: 877-769-7645
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Andy H. Chan/
`
`Andy H. Chan, Reg. No. 56,893
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive,
`Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3600 (telephone)
`(650) 802-3650 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 31, 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
