`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) objects to the evidence
`
`submitted by Petitioner Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”) on October 24, 2016,
`
`with its reply brief as follows:
`
`Bosch objects to Ex. 1100 (Declaration of David Peck) under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401 and 701–02 and 42.23(b). Paragraphs 5–26 of Ex. 1100 constitute unqualified
`
`expert testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 702) because Costco has not established Mr. Peck
`
`as an expert to opine on the thinking of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention, or the applicability of any secondary considerations, and
`
`constitute improper lay opinion testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 701) because the opinions
`
`offered by Mr. Peck are based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized
`
`knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Costco further has failed to provide the
`
`requisite disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Paragraphs 5–13, 14,
`
`17, and 21–26 of Ex. 1100 constitute material outside the proper scope of a reply
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)) because they do not respond to arguments in Bosch’s patent
`
`owner response and because they add to or modify the grounds and evidence of
`
`alleged unpatentability asserted in Costco’s petition and instituted by the Board
`
`and present evidence that should have been presented with Costco’s petition (35
`
`U.S.C. § 312), for example, by asserting additional prior art, evidence, and reasons
`
`that someone would have been motivated to modify or combine elements of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`prior art. This evidence should have been presented in Costco’s petition. Because
`
`these paragraphs fall outside the scope of a proper reply, and further because they
`
`are presented from the perspective of a single artisan rather than a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, they are irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401). To whatever extent
`
`Ex. 1100, or the portions of Costco’s reply that rely on it, may be considered
`
`supplemental information, it is untimely and improperly submitted under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123, for example, because it expands the scope of the grounds upon which
`
`inter partes review was instituted.
`
`Bosch objects to Ex. 1103 (Second Declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis)
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 42.23(b). Paragraphs 8–27 of Ex. 1103 constitute
`
`material outside the proper scope of a reply (37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)) because they do
`
`not respond to arguments in Bosch’s patent owner response and because they add
`
`to or modify the grounds and evidence of alleged unpatentability asserted in
`
`Costco’s petition and instituted by the Board and present evidence that should have
`
`been presented with Costco’s petition (35 U.S.C. § 312), for example, by asserting
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art relied upon
`
`by Costco in its petition and by asserting additional prior art, evidence, and reasons
`
`that someone would have been motivated to modify or combine elements of the
`
`prior art. Costco’s petition relied upon (i) the incorporation by reference of Appel
`
`’551 into Appel ’770, (ii) the combination of Arai and Appel ’770, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
`(iii) Swanepoel’s alleged teaching of the elements of the challenged claims.
`
`Costco should have submitted any evidence in support of these positions with its
`
`petition. Just as these paragraphs fall outside the scope of a proper reply and add
`
`to the issues that should have been presented in the petition, they are irrelevant to
`
`the issues properly part of this proceeding (Fed. R. Evid. 401). To whatever extent
`
`Ex. 1103, or the portions of Costco’s reply that rely upon it, may be considered
`
`supplemental information, it is untimely and improperly submitted under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123, for example because it expands the scope of the grounds upon which
`
`inter partes review was instituted.
`
`
`
`DATED: October 31, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`
`
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`Mark A. Hannemann (pro hac vice)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S REPLY EVIDENCE was served via
`
`electronic mail on October 31, 2016, on the following counsel for Petitioner:
`
`Richard M. Koehl (richard.koehl@hugheshubbard.com)
`James R. Klaiber (james.klaiber@hugheshubbard.com)
`David E. Lansky (david.lansky@hugheshubbard.com)
`Stefanie Lopatkin (stefanie.lopatkin@hugheshubbard.com)
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC