`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`
`
`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. IPR2016-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`______________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`
`
`
`
`
`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, and evidence newly cited therein, as follows:
`
`Bosch objects to Ex. 1100 (Declaration of David Peck) under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401 and 701–02 and 37 C.F.R. § 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`combine elements of the 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 upon it, may be considered supplemental information, it is untimely and
`
`improperly submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, for example because they expand
`
`the scope of the grounds upon which inter partes review was instituted.
`
`Bosch objects to Ex. 1104 (DE 19736368) and Ex. 1105 (US 6,292,974)
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 104(b), 401, and 802 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b) and 42.63(b).
`
`Costco relies on Ex. 1104 as additional prior art to support its asserted grounds,
`
`beyond the proper scope of a reply and in violation of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b) and
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312, and without the translation and corresponding affidavit required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(b). Ex. 1105 is relied on as a U.S. counterpart to, and
`
`assumed to be a translation of, Ex. 1104. It is irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401) and
`
`hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802) insofar as relied upon to establish the English meaning
`
`of Ex. 1104, and Ex. 1104 is inadmissible insofar as its relevance depends on the
`
`translation (Fed. R. Evid. 104(b)). Just as Exs. 1104 and 1105 are 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`Evid. 401). To whatever extent Exs. 1104 and 1105, or the portions of Costco’s
`
`reply that rely upon them, may be considered supplemental information, they are
`
`untimely and improperly submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, for example because
`
`they expand the scope of the grounds upon which inter partes review was
`
`instituted.
`
`Bosch objects to Ex. 1016 (Declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis), in
`
`particular Exs. F (US 6,944,905) and K (WO00/34090) thereto, under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6, 42.23(b), and 42.63. Costco submitted Ex. 1016
`
`with its petition, but now improperly relies upon two exhibits to that declaration as
`
`prior art to support an entirely new ground and evidence of obviousness—that the
`
`invention of the ’588 patent was merely “a further iteration in a series of minor
`
`improvements,” Paper 37 at 10—in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312. Just as these sub-exhibits to Ex. 1016 are 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). The ’905 patent is also irrelevant because it is admitted not to be prior art.
`
`These sub-exhibits, insofar as relied upon in support of Costco’s positions (as
`
`opposed to in support of Dr. Davis’s declaration), are also improperly filed under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 and 42.63. To whatever extent these sub-exhibits to Ex. 1016,
`
`or the portions of Costco’s reply that relies on them, may be considered
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
`supplemental information, they are untimely and improperly submitted under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, for example because they expand 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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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