`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on New Evidence to Cure Deficiencies in Its Petition
`Is Improper and Prejudicial to Patent Owner .................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Overcome the Objections to Exs. 1022 and 1029 ........ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1029 (“Jacobsen”) ...................................................................... 2
`
`Exhibit 1022 (“CVEC slides”) ................................................................ 4
`
`III. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`
`
`(“Motion”) is consistent with the Board’s Order of July 27, 2016 (Paper 24). That
`
`order not only authorized the filing of a list of new issues raised in Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`but reminded the parties that they may also file Motions to Exclude that address
`
`admissibility of any evidence for which an objection was timely filed (Paper 24 at 3).
`
`Patent Owner subsequently filed its motion to exclude based on the objections that it
`
`had lodged in Paper 22. As stated in a Board decision cited by Petitioner, “[a] motion
`
`to exclude can be based on ... evidence presented contrary to the applicable rules (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) (‘[e]vidence that is not taken, sought, or
`
`filed in accordance with ... [Subpart 42] is not admissible.’)” (IPR2014-01555, Paper
`
`50 at 72). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion was proper.
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Reliance on New Evidence to Cure Deficiencies in Its Petition
`Is Improper and Prejudicial to Patent Owner
`
`Although Petitioner contends that “nothing” in its Reply is necessary to
`
`establish its prima facie case of obviousness, that clearly is not true. Indeed, as
`
`explained in the Motion, Petitioner improperly submitted new evidence on reply to
`
`cure deficiencies in the Petition that Patent Owner had identified in its Response. See
`
`IPR2013-00424, Paper 50 at 21 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2015) (“A Reply affords the
`
`Petitioner an opportunity to refute arguments and evidence advanced by Patent
`
`Owner, not an opportunity to cure deficiencies in its Petition.”).
`
`In an attempt to downplay the prejudice to Patent Owner that would result
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from admission of the new evidence, Petitioner notes that Patent Owner had the
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`opportunity to submit observations on cross-examination. Petitioner, however,
`
`ignores the fact that observations on cross-examination are limited in scope and,
`
`significantly, do not allow for the submission of rebuttal argument or evidence. As
`
`the Board recently recognized, new evidence and argument in a Reply is improper
`
`“because, as the Federal Circuit instructed…the agency ‘must allow ‘a party…to
`
`submit rebuttal evidence…as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the
`
`facts.’” IPR2013-00440, Paper 49 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016). No such opportunity
`
`for rebuttal evidence is available to Patent Owner here. Accordingly, Petitioner’s new
`
`evidence should be excluded.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Overcome the Objections to Exs. 1022 and 1029
`A.
`Petitioner’s opposition trivializes and renders meaningless the Federal Rules of
`
`Exhibit 1029 (“Jacobsen”)
`
`Evidence (“FRE”). In particular, FRE 901 requires that the proponent produce
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is.
`
`For example, “[w]hen offering a printout of a webpage into evidence to prove the
`
`website’s contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information
`
`from the website itself, not merely the printout.” IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 at 10
`
`(PTAB April 23, 2015).
`
`Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Instead, Petitioner only alleges that
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because the Jacobsen webpage bears “The Jacobsen” trade inscription, it is self-
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`authenticating under FRE 902(7). But Jacobsen is not an inscription, sign, tag, or
`
`label – it is a printout of a web page. “Printouts from a web site do not bear the
`
`indicia of reliability demanded…under FRE 902. To be authenticated, some
`
`statement or affidavit from someone with knowledge is required.” In re
`
`Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 347 F. Supp. 2d 769, 782-83 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2004), see also IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 at 10. Following Petitioner’s logic, any
`
`webpage containing a trademark should be found authentic, even if the trademark had
`
`been inserted fraudulently by someone other than the trademark’s owner, thus
`
`rendering FRE 901 meaningless. See Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236 (3d
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner erroneously relies upon the decision in IPR2013-00534, Paper No.
`
`81 at 24, in an attempt to support its self-authentication position. The facts in that
`
`case differed in that the petitioner did not rely solely upon the fact that the document
`
`at issue bore a Duke University trade inscription, but submitted an affidavit of the
`
`person who obtained a copy of the original document detailing how it was obtained.
`
`Similarly without merit is Petitioner’s assertion that Jacobsen does not contain
`
`hearsay. Petitioner’s Reply offers Jacobsen for the truth of the matter asserted, not as
`
`“evidence of what it describes to an ordinary artisan.” Notably, Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Rockstraw, does not even consider Jacobsen in his analysis, let alone explain
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`what relevance, if any, one of ordinary skill would have ascribed to them.
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`Exhibit 1022 (“CVEC slides”)
`
`B.
`There is no merit to Petitioner’s assertions regarding the sufficiency of Patent
`
`Owner’s objections to Ex. 1022. During the Kohl deposition, Patent Owner entered
`
`objections to Petitioner’s reliance upon Ex. 1022, and Petitioner did not cure such
`
`objections during the deposition as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a). When Petitioner
`
`filed Ex. 1022 in connection with Petitioner’s Reply, Patent Owner again filed timely
`
`objections based upon the manner in which Petitioner was relying upon the exhibit.
`
`Nothing more was needed. This is particularly true given that Petitioner raised
`
`Ex. 1022 for the first time during a deposition. As the Board recognized, where a
`
`petitioner produces a document for the first time during a deposition “and did not
`
`notify Patent Owner of its intent to introduce [the] Exhibit[] prior to the deposition ...
`
`it would be unfair to expect [Patent Owner] to provide the basis of its objections
`
`during the deposition with a high degree of particularity.” IPR2014-00504, Paper 46
`
`at 38 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2015). “[Section] 42.64(a) does not specify a level of
`
`particularity with which an objection made during deposition must be made.” Id. at
`
`38 n. 4.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Ex. 1031 (“the Copa deposition”) to support the
`
`admissibility of Ex. 1022 also misses the mark because Patent Owner challenged Ex.
`
`1022 based on hearsay and relevance, not authenticity. That Mr. Copa is the “creator”
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Ex. 1022 does not change the fact that Ex. 1022 is an out of court statement being
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`offered for the truth of the matter asserted, namely, that Chippewa Valley Ethanol
`
`Company allegedly added polysorbate 80/Tween 80 in a corn oil recovery process
`
`(see Paper 21 at 1, 8). Petitioner has not disputed that it attempted to use Ex. 1022 for
`
`the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it now alleges that the exhibit can be offered
`
`as evidence of what it describes to an ordinary artisan. But that is not how Petitioner
`
`has offered Ex. 1022. In fact, Petitioner failed to have its own expert consider Ex.
`
`1022, let alone testify as to how it would have been relevant to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner relies on Thomas & Betts, 720 F.2d at 1580-81, in an attempt to
`
`support its allegation that the non-public nature of Ex. 1022 does not affect its
`
`relevance to the level of skill in the art, but the Federal Circuit has admonished
`
`parties for “read[ing] too much into Thomas & Betts because…the document at issue
`
`in that case received additional support in the form of testimony about the state of the
`
`art at the time of the publication.” In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 84 F. App’x 76, 81
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, Petitioner has failed to establish when the document was
`
`publicly available, how the information was obtained, who obtained it, or the
`
`source(s) of the information.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons discussed above, and in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude,
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s new reply evidence should be excluded.
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph Lucci/
`Joseph Lucci
`Registration No. 33,307
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`Telephone: 215.568.3100
`Facsimile: 215.568.3439
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, David N. Farsiou, hereby certify that on this 29th day of August, 2016, the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served electronically via e-
`
`mail on the following:
`
`Richard Roche
`Joel A. Austin
`Christopher J. Fahy
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`411 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Suite 2350
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
`richard.roche@quarles.com
`joel.austin@quarles.com
`christopher.fahy@quarles.com
`
`
`
`/David N. Farsiou/
`David N. Farsiou
`Reg. No. 44,104
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`Telephone: 215.568.3100
`Facsimile: 215.568.3439
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`- 7 -