`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,292,974
`
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board exclude Paragraphs 7, 9–11, 15, 18,
`
`19, 21, and 23–26 of the declaration of Mr. David Peck (Ex. 1100) offered by
`
`Petitioner. Patent Owner timely objected to this evidence on October 31, 2016.
`
`See Paper 37. Petitioner did serve any supplemental evidence or otherwise respond
`
`to the objection.
`
`It is unclear whether Petitioner intends to offer Mr. Peck’s testimony as a
`
`fact or an expert witness. While Petitioner did not establish Mr. Peck as qualified
`
`to opine as an expert on the subjects on which he offered his opinions, Petitioner
`
`did retain Mr. Peck in February 2015 (prior to filing this IPR) and did pay Mr.
`
`Peck for his testimony in connection with this proceeding. Ex. 2029 at 7:11–20;
`
`10:13–12:11.
`
`
`
`II. MR. PECK IS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE TECHNICAL EXPERT
`OPINIONS REGARDING THE THINKING OF A PERSON OF
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AT THE TIME OF THE
`INVENTION
`
`Rule 702 allows opinion testimony from an expert witness only if the
`
`witness is qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” on the
`
`subject to which the witness is testifying, and then only if four criteria are met: “(a)
`
`the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony
`
`is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
`
`methods to the facts of the case.” See Fed. R. Evid. 702. Conversely, a lay witness
`
`may not offer opinion testimony unless it is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s
`
`perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to
`
`determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Fed. R. Evid. 701.
`
`The questions presented in this proceeding concern the understanding of a
`
`hypothetical person of skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made
`
`(no later than August 21, 1997, the foreign application priority date of the ’974
`
`patent). See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007); see also
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, nowhere in his declaration or deposition testimony
`
`did Mr. Peck express any understanding of who a person of ordinary skill is in the
`
`context of this patent, nor any understanding that the opinions stated in his
`
`declaration are directed to what such a person would have known and understood.
`
`Mr. Peck’s expertise was gained in the course of his employment by Trico, a
`
`previously accused infringer that is now one of Patent Owner’s licensees. See Ex.
`
`1100 at ¶ 3; Ex. 2029 at 102:18–103:15; see also Robert Bosch LLC v. Trico
`
`Prods. Corp., Case No. 12 CV 437 (N.D. Ill.), D.I. 209, Stipulation of Dismissal
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`and Order (Aug. 6, 2014). However, he did not begin his employment at Trico
`
`until the spring of 1997, too late for him to have gained expertise sufficient to
`
`opine as to the state of mind of a person of ordinary skill of the art in the wiper-
`
`design field as of the time of the invention. Ex. 1100 at ¶ 3; Ex. 2029 at 20:12–25,
`
`34:25–37:17.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Peck has never been a wiper-blade designer. His experience
`
`is in the field of manufacturing machinery, including the design of the “production
`
`equipment” that was used to manufacture what ultimately became the Trico
`
`“Innovision” beam-style wiper blade. Ex. 2029 at, e.g., 34:25–37:17; see also
`
`20:12–32:24.
`
`Regardless of whether he has any design experience at all, Mr. Peck had no
`
`experience in designing beam-style wiper blades at the time of the invention in
`
`August 1997. Id. In particular, he had no experience designing beam-style wiper
`
`blades with spoilers at the time of the invention—Trico (the company for which he
`
`worked and the sole source of his purported experience) did not start designing
`
`beam blades with spoilers until 2003, well after the invention and publication of
`
`the ’974 patent. Id. at, e.g., 69:16–70:15 (“When we went to beam blades, once we
`
`got it commercialized, so that puts it in the 2003 beginning, then we started
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`focusing on adding air foils into the VariFlex type program.”);1 see also 73:16–
`
`74:4 (discussing beam blades, “[t]hat would mean it started about 2003-ish, where
`
`we would start trying to develop the air foil and how you integrate it into a flexible
`
`structure.”).
`
`Accordingly, Paragraphs 7, 9–11, 18, 19, 21, and 23–26 should be excluded
`
`under Rule 702.
`
`To the extent that Mr. Peck is offering his lay opinion, these paragraphs
`
`should be excluded under Rule 701 because Mr. Peck’s lay opinion is not
`
`rationally based on Mr. Peck’s perception, and because it is based on scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702 instead; and
`
`as irrelevant under Rule 401 because his purported experience stems from the
`
`wrong time period.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`VariFlex is a “proprietary” software program created by a third party that
`
`was not “commercially available at any time,” (Ex. 2029 at 74:17–24; see also Ex.
`
`1100 at ¶ 10 (“a custom computer program created by Adrian Swanepoel….”))—
`
`one that Mr. Peck never personally used, (Ex. 2029 at 44:11–45:6).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`III. MR. PECK IS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE EXPERT OPINIONS
`REGARDING FINANCIAL ISSUES, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS, OR
`CONSUMER DEMAND
`
`Mr. Peck is a mechanical engineer with experience in designing wiper-blade
`
`production equipment. He has no knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
`
`education to qualify as an expert to offer opinions concerning financial, marketing,
`
`or consumer demand issues, including an opinion whether Trico’s Innovision
`
`wiper blade was a commercial success or a commercial failure. See, e.g.,
`
`Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Thorley Industries LLC, No. 13-cv-00387, 2015
`
`WL 5021416, at *13 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2015) (excluding proffered expert with
`
`background in “product design, product development, manufacturing and
`
`international sourcing” from testifying concerning “financial issues” such as
`
`commercial success); XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 9–157, 2013 WL
`
`865974, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2013) (witness with computer science and call
`
`center expertise not qualified to give conclusions on commercial success and
`
`industry acceptance because such conclusions exceeded his technical expertise);
`
`Lutron Elecs. Co. v. Crestron Elecs., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1242 (D. Utah
`
`2013) (witness with background in electrical engineering not qualified to opine on
`
`commercial success and “deficiencies cannot be corrected merely by cross-
`
`examination”); Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 254 F.R.D. 597, 608
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2008) (witness with electrical engineering background and over three
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`decades semiconductor device design experience “lack[ed] the expertise needed to
`
`testify about the commercial aspects of this inquiry”).
`
`Accordingly, Paragraph 15 (opining on what makes a product a “success”),
`
`the last sentence of Paragraph 18 (opining on “customer demand”), and Paragraph
`
`21 (opining on issues “important to customers”) should be excluded under Rule
`
`702. And, to the extent that Mr. Peck is offering his lay opinion in these
`
`paragraphs, they should be stricken under Rules 401 and 701 for the same reasons
`
`as discussed in Section II above.
`
`
`
`
`
`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) 848-7708
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`DATED: December 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) 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) 848-7708
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC