`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-019791
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00919 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper
`
`51) and the Goodrich Declaration (Exhibit 2036) do not establish the relevance or
`
`authenticity2 of the challenged exhibits, and PO concedes that the challenged
`
`exhibits are inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits 2009 and 2011-2013 should be
`
`excluded because they are irrelevant, lack authentication, and are hearsay.
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBIT 2009 (KERNEL32.DLL WEBOPEDIA DEFINITION) IS INADMISSIBLE
`PO does not establish that Exhibit 2009 is relevant or authentic, and does not
`
`contest that Exhibit 2009 is hearsay. Exhibit 2009 should be excluded.
`
`PO relies on the Goodrich Declaration to argue that Exhibit 2009 is relevant
`
`to show that the kernel32.dll discussed in Khazan does not meet certain claim
`
`limitations of the ’154 patent. However, Dr. Goodrich’s testimony is unreliable,
`
`lacks evidentiary support, and therefore does not establish the relevance of Exhibit
`
`2009. Specifically, PO relies on Dr. Goodrich to argue that Exhibit 2009
`
`demonstrates that “a library would not be considered an application program
`
`comprising content over a network,” and “anything in kernel32.dll could not be
`
`deemed a ‘call to the first function’ or ‘first function,’ in the context of the ’154
`
`Patent.” (Paper 51 at 1-2.) But Dr. Goodrich blindly applied Dr. Medvidovic’s
`
`improperly narrow construction of “content” to argue that a library is not “content”
`
`
`2 Petitioner did not waive its authentication objections. (Paper 23 at 1-5.)
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`received over a network. (Ex. 1047 at 4 (11:5-14), 5 (15:25-16:7), 5-6 (17:23-
`
`18:4); Paper 35 at 5-8.) And Dr. Goodrich testified before another Board panel that
`
`the library in Khazan can include a call to a function:
`
`Q: And isn’t it accurate, sir, that Khazan teaches that a library can
`
`include a call to a function? As you summarize in Paragraph 65, “At a
`
`later point in time during execution of the application, as part of
`
`dynamic analysis, calls made to target functions by the application
`
`and/or its libraries are monitored.”? A: I see that. Q: Those are your
`
`words; correct? A: Yes.
`
`(Ex. 1047 at 11 (40:6-14) (citing Ex. 1048 at ¶ 65 (emphasis added).) Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s testimony also fails to provide evidentiary support for the conclusion
`
`that Exhibit 2009, undated and retrieved in 2016, shows the understanding of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in 2005. (Ex. 2036 at ¶¶ 29-30.) Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s testimony lacks credibility and does not establish relevance.
`
`As to authentication and hearsay, Dr. Goodrich’s knowledge of what was
`
`generally known regarding kernel32.dll during the 2005 timeframe is not sufficient
`
`authentication for Exhibit 2009 (F.R.E. 901), and PO does not contest that Exhibit
`
`2009 is hearsay. In order for F.R.E. 703 to apply, PO must show that experts in the
`
`field would reasonably rely on Exhibit 2009 and PO does not meet its burden.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`II. EXHIBIT 2011 (“TYPE SIGNATURE” WIKIPEDIA PAGE) IS INADMISSIBLE
`PO does not establish that Exhibit 2011 is relevant or authentic, and does not
`
`contest that Exhibit 2011 is hearsay. Exhibit 2011 should be excluded.
`
`As to relevance, Dr. Goodrich does not provide any support for his
`
`testimony that the Wikipedia definition of “type signature” in Exhibit 2011
`
`demonstrates how a POSA would have understood that term in 2005. (Ex. 2036 at
`
`¶¶ 31-32.) The Wikipedia article bears no date and was retrieved in 2016. Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s unsupported testimony is insufficient to establish relevance.
`
`As to authentication and hearsay, Dr. Goodrich’s knowledge of what was
`
`generally known regarding “type signature” during the 2005 timeframe is not
`
`sufficient authentication evidence for the particular definition contained in Exhibit
`
`2011 (F.R.E. 901), and PO does not contest that Exhibit 2011 is hearsay. In order
`
`for F.R.E. 703 to apply, PO must show that experts in the field would reasonably
`
`rely on Exhibit 2011 and PO does not meet its burden.
`
`III. EXHIBIT 2012 (DETOURS WEBPAGE) IS INADMISSIBLE
`PO does not establish that Exhibit 2012 is relevant or authentic, and does not
`
`contest that Exhibit 2012 is hearsay. Exhibit 2012 should be excluded.
`
`As to relevance, Dr. Goodrich does not provide any support for his
`
`testimony that the Detours web page of Exhibit 2012 demonstrates how a POSA
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`would have understood the Detours package in 2005. (Ex. 2036 at ¶¶ 33-35.) The
`
`“established” date on Exhibit 2012 is not evidence of when the information cited
`
`by PO was first made available. (Paper 46 at 5-6.) Dr. Goodrich’s testimony is
`
`insufficient to establish relevance.
`
`As to authentication and hearsay, Dr. Goodrich’s knowledge of what was
`
`generally known regarding Detours during the 2005 timeframe is not sufficient
`
`authentication evidence (F.R.E. 901), and PO does not contest that Exhibit 2012 is
`
`hearsay. In order for F.R.E. 703 to apply, PO must show that experts in the field
`
`would reasonably rely on Exhibit 2012 and PO does not meet its burden.
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 2013 (STACKOVERFLOW WEBPAGE) IS INADMISSIBLE
`PO does not establish that Exhibit 2013 is relevant or authentic and does not
`
`contest that Exhibit 2013 is hearsay. Exhibit 2013 should be excluded.
`
`PO relies on Dr. Goodrich to argue that Exhibit 2013 is relevant to show that
`
`Khazan does not teach instrumenting applications and therefore does not meet
`
`certain claim limitations of the ’154 patent. (Paper 51 at 9.) However, Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s testimony is unreliable, lacks evidentiary support, and therefore does
`
`not establish the relevance of Exhibit 2013. Indeed, Dr. Goodrich testified before
`
`another Board panel that Khazan teaches instrumenting an application:
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`Q: Paragraph 82 of Exhibit 8, top of page 31 says, “Khazan modifies
`
`the program to indicate program-level function calls made during
`
`execution of the program by instrumenting an application…” Do you
`
`see that? A: Yes. Q: Those are your words; correct? A: Yes.
`
` (Ex. 1047 at 11 (38:10-20) (citing Ex. 1048 at ¶ 82)) (emphasis added)); id. at 11
`
`(38:21-40:5) (“Khazan explains that an application may be run in an emulator and
`
`further explains that the application may be instrumented to execute monitoring
`
`code.”) (citing Ex. 1048 at ¶ 83) (emphasis added).) Dr. Goodrich’s testimony also
`
`fails to provide evidentiary support for the conclusion that Exhibit 2013 shows the
`
`understanding of a POSA in 2005. (Ex. 2036 at ¶¶ 36-37.) Dr. Goodrich’s
`
`testimony lacks credibility and does not establish relevance.
`
`As to authentication and hearsay, Dr. Goodrich’s knowledge of what was
`
`generally known by a POSA in the 2005 timeframe is not sufficient authentication
`
`evidence (F.R.E. 901), and PO does not contest that Exhibit 2013 is hearsay. In
`
`order for F.R.E. 703 to apply, PO must show that experts would reasonably rely on
`
`Exhibit 2013 and PO does not meet its burden.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For reasons set forth above and in Petitioner’s motion to exclude, Exhibits
`
`2009 and 2011-2013 should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply ISO Motion to Exclude
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`December 2, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served by filing this document through the E2E System, as
`
`well as delivering via electronic mail upon the following counsel of record:
`
`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
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra
`David Nelson
`Kenneth K. Suh
`QUINN EMANUEL
`500 W. Madison St., Suite 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`nathanhamstra@quinnemanuel.com
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`kennethsuh@quinnemanuel.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
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Kim
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`Phone: 650.397.9567
`
`
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,450