`
`
`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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF DAVID PECK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 17) and the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) moves the Board to
`
`observe the following passages in the cross-examination of David Peck. Petitioner
`
`Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”) submitted a declaration by Mr. Peck (Ex.
`
`1100) with its Reply, and Bosch cross-examined Mr. Peck on December 2, 2016.
`
`The complete transcript of the cross-examination is submitted herewith as Exhibit
`
`2029. Also submitted herewith is an article written by Mr. Peck, Exhibit 2028,
`
`which was introduced and served upon Costco at the deposition.
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2029, on page 50, line 24 to page 52, line 12, Mr. Peck
`
`testified that Ford purchased a variant of the Innovision product for one year but
`
`found it didn’t work well, and no other OEMs purchased Innovision. This is
`
`relevant to Costco’s arguments on page 16 of its Reply. It is relevant because it
`
`rebuts any assertion that Trico’s product (lacking a spoiler or end caps) was
`
`commercially successful, and highlights the relative success of Bosch’s own beam-
`
`blade products (including a spoiler and end caps).
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2029, on page 93, line 19 to page 94, line 20, Mr. Peck
`
`testified that an optimal force distribution was to have “a constant load
`
`everywhere.” This is relevant to Bosch’s arguments in its Response at pages 3–10.
`
`It is relevant because it confirms Bosch’s position that, consistent with the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of both Arai and Appel ’770, the prior art taught that the pressure
`
`distributions across a blade should be uniform.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2029, on page 101, lines 9 to 20, Mr. Peck testified (by
`
`reference to Ex. 2028, an article written by Mr. Peck and published in October
`
`2002) that in 1998, Trico determined “a better looking wiper with improved
`
`squeeging could be produced through a more uniform pressure distribution
`
`imparted by the wiper blade operations.” This is relevant to Bosch’s arguments in
`
`its Response at pages 3–10. It is relevant because it confirms the thinking in the
`
`industry in 1998 to late 2002 that uniformity of pressure distribution was a
`
`desirable trait and, in fact, was a driving force in the development of beam blades.
`
`4.
`
` In Exhibit 2029, on page 7, lines 11 to 20, Mr. Peck testified that he
`
`was being compensated at $150 per hour for his time preparing his declaration and
`
`attending his deposition. This is relevant if Mr. Peck is, at least on certain issues, a
`
`fact witness being paid for his recollections. See also Ex. 2029 at 112:19–114:22
`
`(Mr. Peck, in response to leading questions from Costco’s counsel, contradicted his
`
`prior testimony developed on cross-examination at 87:5–88:11). His declaration
`
`therefore should be given minimal weight.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: December 13, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`Mark A. Hannemann (pro hac vice)
`Joseph M. Purcell, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DAVID
`
`PECK was served via electronic mail on December 13, 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)
`James Dabney (james.dabney@hugheshubbard.com)
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher
`Reg. No. 74,955
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
