`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01985
`
`Patent No. 8,713,476
`
`Title: Computing Device with Improved User Interface for
`Applications
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... III
`I.
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE
`OVERRULED ................................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Exhibits 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013 Are Admissible ........................ 1
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Authentic ............................................ 2
`
` 2.
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Not Hearsay, And Are
`Admissible Regardless ............................................................... 6
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Relevant Because They
`Contradict Patent Owner’s Argument. ....................................... 8
`Patent Owner’s Objections To Paragraphs 13-18 Of Dr.
`Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration (Ex. 1015) Should Be Overruled
`For The Same Reasons. ...................................................................... 10
`II.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1010
`
`Description
`Excerpt from 12/99 issue of Popular Science
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`User’s Guide for Ericsson R380s
`
`Press release dated 3/18/99 from Open Mobile Alliance
`
`Article dated 3/18/199 from EE Times
`
`Excerpts from Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`
`Rebuttal Declaration Of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`Transcript of September 7, 2016 Deposition of Scott Denning
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition To Motion To Exclude
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE
`OVERRULED
`A. Exhibits 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013 Are Admissible
`Exhibits 1010-1013 relate to the Ericsson R380 mobile telephone that is
`
`pictured below. Together, Exhibits 1010-1013 are referred to by Dr. Rhyne as
`
`confirmation that the software architecture “applications layered on top of an
`
`operating system” was known to those of ordinary skill prior to the July 2000
`
`priority date. Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 11, 18. More specifically, as Dr. Rhyne explains,
`
`these exhibits show that “Ericsson’s R380 “smartphone” included a version of the
`
`Symbian EPOC32 operating system as well as a variety of applications.” Ex. 1015
`
`at ¶¶ 11-18.
`
`Ex. 1011 at 6.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 at 3.
`
`Exhibit 1011 is a copy of a manual for the Ericsson R380 that is dated June,
`
`2000. Ex. 1011 at 3. Exhibits 1010, 1012, and 1013 are publications from 1999
`
`that refer to the Ericsson R380 telephone.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Authentic
`
`Patent Owner objects to each of Exhibits 1010-1013 as “not authenticated,”
`
`arguing that Dr. Rhyne “cannot authenticate” these exhibits because he received
`
`them from attorneys representing LG. Motion to Exclude (Paper 31) at 1, 2-3, 4, 5.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is incorrect for at least two reasons. First, the fact Dr.
`
`Rhyne received copies of these exhibits from LG’s attorneys does not mean that he
`
`cannot authenticate them. Second, even without Dr. Rhyne’s testimony, Exhibits
`
`1010-1013 satisfy the authenticity requirement because their appearance and
`
`contents confirms that each is what it purports to be.
`
`Authentication of evidence requires its proponent to “produce evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b) provides examples of how
`
`this requirement may be satisfied, including:
`
`(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an
`item is what it is claimed to be.
`…
`(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. The appearance,
`contents,
`substance,
`internal patterns, or other distinctive
`characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 are each authentic under either or both of these
`
`principles. First, each of these exhibits is authentic because, both individually and
`
`collectively, the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances”
`
`show that they are what they purport to be.
`
`Exhibit 1010 is an excerpted color copy of the December 1999 issue of
`
`Popular Science, which featured a cover story called “Best of What’s New Awards
`
`1999.” Exhibit 1010 is replete with distinctive characteristics that demonstrate it is
`
`what it purports to be. On the front page, for example, its authenticity is shown by
`
`the “Popular Science” logo, the images and layout, and the text “December 1999
`
`$3.9_” (the last digit of the price is cut off in the copy). Ex. 1010 contains two
`
`pictures of the Ericsson R380: one on the front cover, and one in the body of the
`
`story. Ex. 1010 at 1, 3. These pictures show the same phone that is illustrated and
`
`described in the Ericsson R380 user manual (Ex. 1011). Furthermore, the other
`
`pictures and descriptions of devices featured in the “Best of What’s New Awards
`
`1999” are all consistent with Ex. 1011 being a copy of the December 1999 issue of
`
`Popular Science—for example, the images of the Audi TT and Honda S2000,
`
`which are cars that were manufactured beginning in 1998 and 1999, respectively.
`
`See Ex. 1010 at 1, 4.
`
`Exhibit 1011 is a black-and-white copy of the “User’s Guide” to the
`
`Ericsson R380s dated June 2000. It also contains numerous images of the phone.
`
`E.g. Ex. 1011 at 1, 6, 7, 13, 90. These images show the same phone pictured in Ex.
`
`1010. Like Exhibit 1010, Exhibit 1011 contains a host of distinctive characteristics
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`that show it is in fact a copy of the June 2000 “User’s Guide” for the “Smartphone
`
`R380s.” Ex. 1011 at 1. For example, the first page of the exhibit (showing the
`
`front and back covers of the manual) contain the Ericsson logo, a UPC code, and
`
`an image of the phone in a user’s hand. Id. The first page also shows the creases
`
`near the spine of the manual where it was folded open to be copied. Artifacts of
`
`the copying process appear on the edges of virtually every page, showing the edges
`
`of the manual as it was pressed onto the copier. Furthermore, the contents of the
`
`manual are all consistent with it being what it says it is: a copy of the June 2000
`
`Ericsson R380s User Guide.
`
` Exhibit 1012 and 1013 are copies of a press release and EE Times article,
`
`respectively. Both are dated March 18, 1999. They describe Ericsson’s
`
`“unveiling” or “launch” of the R380 at “CeBit”, which as Dr. Rhyne explains is a
`
`trade fair that describes itself as “the largest and most influential marketplace for
`
`information and communications technology.” Again, these exhibits contain
`
`distinctive characteristics that confirm that they are what they purport to be,
`
`including for example descriptions of the Ericsson phone that correspond to the
`
`images and descriptions in Exhibits 1010 and 1011. E.g. Ex. 1013 (“Ericsson’s
`
`R380 looks like a standard mobile phone, but the front panel opens up to reveal a
`
`LCD that runs the length of the unit”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`In sum, Exhibits 1010-1013, taken both individually and collectively, are
`
`authentic under Rule 901(b)(4) because they contain “distinctive characteristics”
`
`that show they are what they claim to be.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 are also authentic under Rule 901(b)(1) because, Dr.
`
`Rhyne testified that each of these Exhibits is what he says it is. See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶
`
`13, 14, 15, 16. The fact that Dr. Rhyne received copies of these exhibits from
`
`counsel in no way detracts from his ability to testify that each is what he says it is.
`
`If Patent Owner is attempting to suggest that Dr. Rhyne is not a person “with
`
`knowledge” under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1), this argument fails. Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony establishes that he has knowledge regarding the Ericsson phone. Ex.
`
`1004 at ¶¶ 13-14; Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 11-18. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Dr.
`
`Rhyne’s deposition testimony further illustrates that he has knowledge pertinent to
`
`these documents. See, e.g. Ex. 2011 at 12:2 (Dr. Rhyne testifying that he “used to
`
`subscribe to Popular Science”).
`
`The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert also confirms that the authenticity
`
`of these documents is apparent on their face. After being shown Exhibits 1010-
`
`1013, Mr. Denning contradicted his direct testimony and admitted that a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have known of the Ericsson R380 phone prior to the July
`
`2000 priority date:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Q. Having seen these documents, Exhibits 1010 through 1013, do you
`agree at this point that the Ericsson R380 and R380s were known to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art prior to July 28, 2000?
`MR. HELGE: Object to form.
`THE WITNESS: Yes.
`Ex. 1016 at 141:5-11.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Not Hearsay, And Are Admissible
`Regardless
`
`Patent Owner objects to each of Exhibits 1010-1013 as “hearsay,” arguing
`
`that are presented for the truth of the statements therein, and are not subject to any
`
`exception to the hearsay rule. Motion to Exclude (Paper 31) at 1, 2-3, 4, 5. Patent
`
`Owner’s perfunctory argument is incorrect for several reasons.
`
`First, and most importantly, Exhibits 1010-1013 are not presented for the
`
`truth of “statements” made therein. To the contrary, as with any prior art reference,
`
`what matters is the fact of its existence as part of the body of knowledge available
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See e.g. Standard Oil Co. v. American
`
`Cynamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness is determined with
`
`reference to a “hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the
`
`pertinent prior art”). Documents offered as prior art, such as the Ericsson R380
`
`User Guide (Ex. 1011), are not “a statement” because they are not “a person’s ...
`
`written assertion.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a). The existence of the document itself is
`
`the evidence. Indeed, if Patent Owner were correct that written prior art references
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`are made up of hearsay ‘statements,’ then no prior art references could be admitted
`
`without proving that one of the hearsay exceptions was applicable. That is not the
`
`law, and Patent Owner’s own actions show it: Patent Owner presented as evidence
`
`a manual for the Ericsson R380 that bears a later date in an effort to show that this
`
`phone was not known until after the priority date. Petitioner properly responded
`
`by introducing an earlier-dated manual, as well as multiple other publications that
`
`corroborate the earlier date.
`
`Second, even if prior art documents such as Exhibits 1010-1013 did contain
`
`hearsay “statements,” they would be admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(17):
`
`(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market
`quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally
`relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.
`
`This exception shows that the hearsay rule is not intended to apply to
`
`“commercial publications” that are “generally relied on by the public or by persons
`
`in particular occupations.” Exhibits 1010-1013 are all “commercial publications”
`
`that are “generally relied on by the public.” Furthermore, as discussed above in the
`
`context of the authenticity objection, these documents have strong circumstantial
`
`guarantees of trustworthiness because they all corroborate each other. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 807 (allowing admission of hearsay when it has “equivalent circumstantial
`
`guarantees of trustworthiness” to the hearsay exceptions listed in Rules 803 and
`
`804).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Finally, even if none of the foregoing were true, Patent Owner’s ‘hearsay’
`
`objection is immaterial because Exhibits 1010-1013 are relied upon by Dr. Rhyne
`
`to demonstrate and corroborate his expert opinion, and Dr. Rhyne is entitled to rely
`
`upon them even if they were hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 703.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Exhibits 1010-1013 Are Relevant Because They Contradict
`Patent Owner’s Argument.
`
`Patent Owner objects to each of Exhibits 1010-1013 as not relevant. These
`
`documents are relevant because they directly contradict Patent Owner’s argument.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the software architecture of “applications layered on top
`
`of an operating system” is required by the claims and not obvious from the
`
`Blanchard reference because it was not known for use in mobile telephones. See
`
`e.g. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 8. Exhibits 1010-1013 demonstrate that in fact, it was known to
`
`those of ordinary skill to use “applications layered on top of an operating system”
`
`by the time of the July 2000 priority date. See Ex. 1015 at ¶¶ 11-18. Thus, these
`
`exhibits corroborate Dr. Rhyne’s testimony, and contradict the direct testimony of
`
`Mr. Denning.
`
`The relevance of these documents to this issue is further illustrated by the
`
`fact that after Mr. Denning was shown these documents during his cross-
`
`examination, he admitted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`aware of the Ericsson phone prior to the prior to the July 2000 priority date. Ex.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`1016 at 141:5-11. Mr. Denning further admitted that Exhibit 1011 states that this
`
`phone had an operating system:
`
`Q And do you agree that the phone which ran this EPOC operating
`system used an operating system application architecture as opposed
`to a monolithic operating program architecture?
`MR. HELGE: Object to form.
`THE WITNESS: In your Exhibit 1011 on 19 page 195, it says that the
`R380s contains the EPOC32 operating system and software.
`
`Ex. 1016 at 141:5-11. Mr. Denning’s admissions confirm that these documents are
`
`relevant because they contradict Patent Owner’s argument by showing that it was
`
`known to those of ordinary skill to use “applications layered on top of an operating
`
`system” by the time of the July 2000 priority date.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Exhibits 1010-1013 do not establish that the
`
`Ericsson R380 was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
`
`critical date. This argument is wrong. Exhibit 1011 (the User’s Guide) is dated
`
`“June 2000.” Ex. 1011 at 3. The other three documents corroborate that date by
`
`showing that the phone was announced at the CeBIT conference in March, 1999,
`
`and described in the December 1999 edition of Popular Science as being “available
`
`early next year.” Ex. 1010 at 3; Ex. 1012 at 1; Ex. 1013 at 1.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Objections To Paragraphs 13-18 Of Dr. Rhyne’s
`Rebuttal Declaration (Ex. 1015) Should Be Overruled For The Same
`Reasons.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 13-18 of Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal
`
`Declaration as being “paragraphs that rely on Exs. 1010-1013.” Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper 31) at 6. Patent Owner’s objections to those paragraphs depend on its
`
`objections to Exhibits 1010-1013 and should be overruled for the reasons
`
`explained above, including that Dr. Rhyne is entitled to rely upon evidence even if
`
`it is hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 703.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner’s evidentiary objections should
`
`be overruled.
`
`Dated: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Herbert H. Finn /
`Herbert H. Finn
`Registration No.: 38,139
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr.
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`P: 312-456-8427
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015-01985
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE has been electronically served on the
`
`Patent Owner’s attorneys on the date listed below at the following address:
`
`Wayne Helge
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Email: whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`Office: 571-765-7700
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` Herbert H. Finn /
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 28, 2016
`
`
`
`11