UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-019741
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00480 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-019741
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00480 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PARAGRAPH 57 OF THE GOODRICH DECLARATION IS
`INADMISSIBLE ............................................................................................ 1
`PARAGRAPHS 13-27, 30-34 OF THE BIMS DECLARATION ARE
`INADMISSIBLE ............................................................................................ 1
`III. BLUE COAT VERDICT FORM (EX. 2004) ................................................ 3
`IV. BLUE COAT TRIAL ARGUMENTS AND TESTIMONY (EXS.
`2018, 2007, 2027) AND BLUE COAT TRIAL EXHIBITS (EXS.
`2012, 2014, 2016) ........................................................................................... 3
`BLUE COAT CLAIM CHART (EX. 2048) .................................................. 4
`V.
`VI. SECURE COMPUTING MATERIALS (EXS. 2037, 2029) &
`ORDER (EX. 2028) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00080, Paper 44 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2016) ............................................ 1
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) .............................................................................................. 3
`Brose North Am. v. UUSI, LLC,
`IPR2014-00417, Paper 49 (PTAB July 20, 2015) ................................................ 4
`Goldberg v. Kelly,
`397 U.S. 254 (1970) .............................................................................................. 3
`Graftech Int’l Holdings v. Laird Techs.,
`652 Fed. Appx. 973 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 2
`IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2015-00092, Paper 44 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016) ............................................... 2
`InTouch Techs. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 1
`Iron Grip v. USA Sports,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 3
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2013-00629, Paper 18 (PTAB June 30, 2014) ............................................... 4
`St. Jude Med. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich.
`IPR2013-00041, Paper 69 (PTAB May 1, 2014) ................................................. 5
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) ............................................... 3
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton David Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. § 554 ............................................................................................................ 3
`Other Authorities
`F.R.E.
`402 ......................................................................................................................... 5
`403 ......................................................................................................................... 5
`702 ......................................................................................................................... 1
`703 ............................................................................................................. 1, 2, 4, 5
`801(d)(2) ............................................................................................................... 3
`803(8) ................................................................................................................ 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PARAGRAPH 57 OF THE GOODRICH DECLARATION IS INADMISSIBLE
`Finjan’s assertion that “Petitioner failed to object to the admissibility of
`
`paragraph 57” (Paper 40 at 1-2) is false. PAN objected to Dr. Goodrich’s opinions
`
`as conclusory and unreliable under FRE 702-703, and specifically cited ¶ 57 as an
`
`example because of its reliance on the Bims Declaration. (Paper 23 at 2-3.)
`
`Finjan does not dispute that Dr. Goodrich failed to review any Finjan
`
`licenses, analyze any products to determine whether they practice the challenged
`
`claims, or provide any evidence or analysis concerning nexus. (See Paper 40 at 2-
`
`3.) Instead, Finjan merely asserts that Dr. Goodrich “independently” reviewed the
`
`Bims Declaration and concluded that secondary considerations are “relevant.” (Id.
`
`at 2.) But merely reviewing and agreeing with another’s opinions does not yield
`
`reliable or helpful expert testimony. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2015-
`
`00080, Paper 44 at 39 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2016).
`
`Finjan also does not dispute that Dr. Goodrich based his copying opinions
`
`only on knowledge of Finjan’s patents and desire to compete. Those opinions
`
`should be excluded because they rely on an incorrect legal standard. See InTouch
`
`Techs. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`II.
`
`PARAGRAPHS 13-27, 30-34 OF THE BIMS DECLARATION ARE INADMISSIBLE
`Finjan’s suggestion that PAN waived its objections to Dr. Bims’s testimony
`
`(Paper 40 at 3) is baseless. PAN objected to Dr. Bims’s opinions under FRE 702-
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`
`703 because they “are conclusory, do not disclose supporting facts or data, and/or
`
`are based on unreliable facts, data, or methods.” (Paper 23 at 3.) As one of multiple
`
`examples, Petitioner identified Dr. Bims’s opinions that certain licensee products
`
`allegedly practice the challenged claims, which relate directly to Dr. Bims’s failure
`
`to provide evidence of nexus between the challenged claims and any evidence of
`
`licensing, copying, and long-felt need. (Ex. 2020 at ¶¶ 13-27, 30-34.) And unlike in
`
`IBM Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-00092, Paper 44 at 55 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 25, 2016), where the patent owner completely changed its relevance objection
`
`by asserting that the reference was not prior art, PAN’s initial objection identified
`
`both its general objections and a particular example of the same deficiency that is
`
`the subject of its motion to exclude. (Paper 35 at 4-8.)
`
`Finjan does not dispute that Dr. Bims failed to review Finjan licenses, based
`
`his copying opinions only on alleged knowledge of Finjan’s products and a desire
`
`to compete, and failed to identify a problem or evidence of efforts to solve that
`
`problem. (Paper 35 at 4-8; Paper 40 at 2-3.) Finjan argues only that Dr. Bims
`
`“analyze[d] the benefits of the patented technology to [third party] products and
`
`revenues that these third parties make publicly available.” (Paper 40 at 3.) And Dr.
`
`Bims admitted that his analysis did not tie any alleged benefits or revenues to the
`
`challenged claims (Ex. 1098 at 37:22-39:22, 40:3-17), contrary to law. Graftech
`
`Int’l Holdings v. Laird Techs., 652 Fed. Appx. 973, 978-79 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`III. BLUE COAT VERDICT FORM (EX. 2004)
`Infringement—under the doctrine of equivalents or otherwise—is not the
`
`
`
`equivalent of copying, Iron Grip v. USA Sports, 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004), and an infringement verdict does not indicate the jury even considered
`
`copying. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton David Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 35-36
`
`(1997). Similarly, the Blue Coat jury’s validity determination was based on a prior
`
`art reference not at issue in—and thus not relevant to—this proceeding.
`
`IV. BLUE COAT TRIAL ARGUMENTS AND TESTIMONY (EXS. 2018, 2007, 2027)
`AND BLUE COAT TRIAL EXHIBITS (EXS. 2012, 2014, 2016)
`Finjan’s conclusory statement that Blue Coat trial arguments, testimony, and
`
`exhibits are “admissions by a party opponent” is baseless. A party admission must
`
`be “made by the party” against whom the statement is offered. F.R.E. 801(d)(2).
`
`Since PAN was not a party to the Blue Coat case, statements made during and/or
`
`by parties to that case are inadmissible against PAN.
`
`Finjan invites reversible error by asserting that it can attribute statements
`
`made by Blue Coat and its experts to PAN. (Paper 40 at 9.) To do so would violate
`
`PAN’s due process rights, the Administrative Procedure Act, and established
`
`estoppel and preclusion law. See, e.g., Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 at 13-14 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015); 5 U.S.C. § 554;
`
`Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-68 (1970); Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971). Finjan cites no authority
`
`interpreting this provision as dispensing with a petitioner’s right to due process or
`
`as altering well-established estoppel principles. And while Finjan cites one case
`
`that required 35 petitioners to file as one, that decision does not suggest that PAN
`
`can be held to another party’s litigation positions and outcomes in a separate
`
`proceeding.
`
`Finjan’s argument that these exhibits fall within the public records exception
`
`also fails. A public office record is admissible only if it sets out office activities, a
`
`matter observed while under a legal duty to report, or fact findings from an
`
`authorized investigation. F.R.E. 803(8). A claim construction brief (Ex. 2018),
`
`expert declaration (Ex. 2007), trial testimony (Ex. 2027), and internal Blue Coat
`
`emails (Exs. 2012, 2014, 2016) do not “set out” office activities or matters
`
`observed under a duty to report and are not fact findings from an authorized
`
`investigation. At most, they are disputed evidence with inadmissible hearsay
`
`statements by parties not involved in this proceeding. See F.R.E. 803(8).
`
`Finally, while experts may rely on inadmissible evidence, such reliance does
`
`not make underlying evidence admissible. Brose North Am. v. UUSI, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00417, Paper 49 at 26 (PTAB July 20, 2015); F.R.E. 703.
`
`V.
`
`BLUE COAT CLAIM CHART (EX. 2048)
`Finjan does not dispute that Exhibit 2048 was drafted by attorneys
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`
`unqualified to provide expert testimony. (Paper 40 at 12-14.) Finjan argues only
`
`that PAN waived its objections. (Id. at 12.) But PAN objected under FRE 703 to
`
`Finjan’s “made-for-litigation” chart (Paper 23 at 8), and Finjan suffers no prejudice
`
`since supplemental evidence could not cure the objection. See St. Jude Med. v. Bd.
`
`of Regents of Univ. of Mich. IPR2013-00041, Paper 69 at 32 (PTAB May 1, 2014).
`
`Even if a litigation claim chart were sufficient to put Blue Coat on notice
`
`that Finjan practiced the claims, it is not probative of whether Blue Coat knew of
`
`Finjan’s patents when developing the accused products. See F.R.E. 402, 403.
`
`Moreover, the chart is inadmissible hearsay offered to prove that Finjan’s
`
`product embodied the ’633 patent. (Paper 22 at 43.) Finjan’s assertion that the
`
`chart is a public record is baseless for the reasons discussed in Section IV above.
`
`VI. SECURE COMPUTING MATERIALS (EXS. 2037, 2029) & ORDER (EX. 2028)
`Finjan does not contest that exhibit 2029 is hearsay, arguing only that its
`
`expert may still rely on it. (Paper 40 at 14-15.) But expert reliance does not render
`
`the underlying exhibit admissible. (See § IV, supra.) Finjan makes the same
`
`argument for Exhibit 2037, and also asserts that it is a public record. But merely
`
`entering an email chain as a trial exhibit does not bring it within the public records
`
`exception. (Id; F.R.E. 803(8).) Finjan’s attempt to show relevance for all three
`
`exhibits by linking the ’633 patent to Secure Computing is based on inadmissible
`
`hearsay, which is not admissible against PAN as discussed in Section IV above.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`Dated: December 13, 2016
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PAGE LIMIT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I certify that this Response complies with
`
`the type-volume limits of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(2) because it contains 5 pages,
`
`excluding the parts of this Reply that are exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2016
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`By:
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`IPR2015-01974
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`December 13, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served by
`
`filing this document through the E2E System and via electronic mail upon the
`
`following counsel of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Phone: (206) 883-2925
`Fax: (206) 883-2699
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`Neil N. Desai (Reg. 69,905)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI
`633 West 5th Street, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`Phone: (323) 210-2912
`Fax: (866) 974-7329
`ndesai@wsgr.com
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
` Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Phone: (650) 752-1712
`Fax: (650) 752-1812
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: (212) 715-7502
`Fax: (212) 715-8302
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim (Reg. 40,450)
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650.397.9567
`mkim@finjan.com
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
