`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00034
`Patent 6,973,698
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`
`Pursuant to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) and the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 17), Costco
`
`Wholesale Corp. (“Petitioner”) submits its Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observation On Cross-Examination of David Peck (Paper 49). Patent Owner
`
`presented four observations on the December 2, 2016 deposition testimony of Mr.
`
`Peck (Ex. 2029). Although Petitioner responds to each of Patent Owner’s
`
`observations, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board decline to consider
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations because they are excessively argumentative in
`
`violation of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION NO. 1
`
`Mr. Peck testified that the Trico Innovision product enjoyed considerable
`
`commercial success. Ex. 2029 at 52:7–53:2. The cited testimony of Mr. Peck (id. at
`
`50:24–52:12) is not to the contrary. Mr. Peck testified that the wiper to which
`
`Patent Owner refers in its observation was offered to Ford as original equipment,
`
`but the Innovision product was “designed mainly for the aftermarket.” Id. at
`
`50:24–51:5; Ex. 1100 at ¶¶ 14–15. According to Mr. Peck the Ford wiper was
`
`discontinued because of a problem unrelated to the subject matter of the ’698
`
`Patent (i.e. its connection type). Id. at 51:21–24 (“[The Ford wipers] didn’t work
`
`well ‘cause . . . they didn’t have the hook coupler . . . .”). Contrary to Patent
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`Owner’s suggestion, this testimony has no tendency to show that the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ’698 Patent has experienced commercial success, either directly or
`
`by comparison to the commercial success of the Trico Innovision wiper product.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION NO. 2
`
`Mr. Peck testified to Trico’s process for determining a target pressure
`
`distribution. Ex. 2029 at 92:14–94:20. In his testimony, Mr. Peck distinguished
`
`between an optimum pressure distribution “in a section . . . of the glass” and the
`
`pressure distribution required in operation. Id. (emphasis added). In context, the
`
`“constant load everywhere” to which Mr. Peck referred applies to the initial
`
`development of a pressure profile, before “the engineer would decide how to –
`
`which one or a slight modification would be best fit for all of the sections. . . .
`
`maybe two or 300 per specific lines which is positions on glass.” Id. at 92:18–20,
`
`93:17–18. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, the cited testimony of Mr. Peck
`
`(id. at 93:19–94:20) does not say that the pressure distribution of a completed
`
`wiper should be uniform. In fact, Mr. Peck testified that designers may “want to,
`
`say, bias [the pressure distribution] more to the center or ends.” Id. at 94:2–3.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION NO. 3
`
`Mr. Peck wrote in his article: “This [flat-spring wiper] replaces the current
`
`standard blade superstructure that puts localized high load points onto the glass.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`Ex. 2028 at 1; Ex. 2029 at 101:16–19. In this context, the excerpt of Mr. Peck’s
`
`article referenced in Patent Owner’s observation (see id. at 101:9–20)—that a
`
`better wiper could be produced through “a more uniform pressure distribution”—
`
`plainly refers to a narrow distribution (i.e. reducing pressure points caused by
`
`conventional wipers) rather than the broad distribution with which the ’698 Patent
`
`is concerned (i.e. relative pressures among sections,). See Resp. (Paper 26) at 9
`
`(“Further, the ’698 patent itself acknowledges that ‘uniform’ contact force may not
`
`be absolutely 100% uniform,” i.e. local non-uniformities are inevitable). Further,
`
`the cited excerpt from Mr. Peck’s article supports Costco’s position that factors
`
`other than the claimed subject matter of the ’698 Patent (e.g. being “better
`
`looking”) were the “driving force behind the development” of flat-spring wipers.
`
`See Reply (Paper 32) at 11–12. Mr. Peck confirmed. Ex. 2029 at 109:12–110:4
`
`(explaining cited portion of Ex. 2028, “looks on a passenger car seemed to be a
`
`main driver for selling this particular type of blade.”) (redirect); id. at 55:24–56:2
`
`(“The primary reason people like beam blades was aesthetics. They liked the way
`
`they looked.”) (cross-examination).
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION NO. 4
`
`Mr. Peck explicitly stated that he was hired to “be an industry expert.” Ex.
`
`2029 at 12:5–6. Patent Owner’s observation, on its face, is irrelevant to any of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`arguments or evidence at issue in this proceeding. It is well-established that
`
`“[t]estimony in the dual roles of both a fact witness and an expert witness . . . is
`
`permissible provided that the district court takes precautions to minimize potential
`
`prejudice.” United States v. Farmer, 543 F.3d 363, 370 (7th Cir. 2008). Here,
`
`where there are no concerns of confusing the jury, “[t]he gatekeeping function of
`
`the court is relaxed . . . because the court is better equipped than a jury to weigh the
`
`probative value of expert evidence.” Traxys N. Am., LLC v. Concept Mining, Inc.,
`
`808 F. Supp. 2d 851, 853 (W.D. Va. 2011). Mr. Peck is indisputably testifying
`
`from his own personal observation and rational perception. Further, the questions
`
`asked under redirect simply clarify the questions put by Patent Owner’s counsel,
`
`and Mr. Peck’s responses are not inconsistent.1
`
`
`1 Paragraph 11 of Mr. Peck’s declaration (Ex. 1100), the subject about which Mr.
`
`Peck was being questioned, concerns general composite beam modeling, including
`
`a single sentence describing VariFlex. However, Patent Owner’s counsel asked Mr.
`
`Peck if he had ever “us[ed] software other than VariFlex?” Ex. 2029 at 87:5–8. In
`
`each answer, Mr. Peck clarified that while VariFlex was the only program Trico
`
`had, he never limited the general method to VariFlex only. See id. at 87:5–88:11.
`
`On redirect, Mr. Peck was asked whether each sentence (other than the one noted)
`
`was limited to VariFlex, and answered in the negative. See id. at 112:19–114:22.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/James R. Klaiber/
`James R. Klaiber
`Registration No. 41,902
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, New York 10004
`James.klaiber@hugheshubbard.com
`(212) 837-6125
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of December, 2016, the foregoing
`
`Petitioner’s Response
`
`to Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Observation on
`
`Cross-Examination of David Peck was served in its entirety by email on the
`
`attorneys of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick R. Colsher (patrick.colsher@shearman.com)
`
`Mark Hannemann (mark.hannemann@shearman.com)
`
`Joseph Purcell (joseph.purcell@shearman.com)
`
`/James R. Klaiber/
`James R. Klaiber
`Registration No. 41,902
`
`
`
`
`
`