`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00040
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
`
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this Reply in
`
`support of its motion to exclude evidence submitted by Petitioner Costco
`
`Wholesale Corporation (“Petitioner”). Patent Owner’s motion requested exclusion
`
`of Paragraphs 7, 9–11, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23–26 of the declaration of Mr. David
`
`Peck (Ex. 1100). As Patent Owner pointed out in its motion, it was “unclear
`
`whether Petitioner intends to offer Mr. Peck’s testimony as a fact or an expert
`
`witness.” Motion at 1. Only now does Petitioner clarify that Mr. Peck is being
`
`offered as an expert witness on technical issues and both an expert and a fact
`
`witness on economic issues. With respect to both sets of issues, however, the
`
`challenged testimony is expert in nature, and Mr. Peck is not qualified to offer it.
`
`I. MR. PECK HAS NOT SET FORTH SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE TO
`PROVIDE TECHNICAL TESTIMONY RELEVANT TO
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Petitioner’s opposition all but ignores the crucial distinction between beam
`
`blades (or, in Petitioner’s words, “flat-spring wipers”) and conventional wiper
`
`blades. Mr. Peck purports to offer opinions regarding beam-blade design,
`
`specifically, in the 1990s, but Mr. Peck’s declaration and cross-examination
`
`testimony establish that his experience in beam-blade design as of the relevant time
`
`period is based solely on his supervision of engineers using VariFlex software,
`
`which neither he nor anyone else at Trico actually developed. For example, at
`
`deposition, Mr. Peck testified that the extent of his involvement in designing any
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`beam blade’s spring—the “support element” that would be affected by changes to
`
`the blade’s structure—was to verify that the VariFlex software worked:
`
`Q. How involved were you in designing the spring in the beam blade?
`A. That was a VariFlex program. That was – Adriaan [Swanepoel] gave that
`to us. We just had to verify it worked. So what we did, we at Trico, we
`verified the program. We did it two ways. …
`Ex. 2029 at 38:16–21. VariFlex is proprietary software that Trico acquired from
`
`Adriaan Swanepoel in South Africa. See Ex. 2029 at 35:11–14, 40:20–24, 74:17–
`
`24. Mr. Swanepoel not only provided the software but also taught Trico how to use
`
`it. Id. at 75:4–17. Petitioner cannot assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant time period would have been familiar with VariFlex.
`
`Petitioner argues that Mr. Peck need not have worked in precisely the same
`
`field as the invention, and that he need not have been a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art during the relevant time frame. But there must be some basis for his
`
`opinions. For example, “[i]f an expert is qualified to testify about a subject
`
`generally and has had training in the subject matter at issue, then the expert may
`
`offer an opinion.” Petitioner’s Opposition at 5 (emphasis added) (quoting Zoltek
`
`Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 681, 685 (2010)). Nobody has argued that
`
`Trico already had designed a beam blade in 1997 such that Mr. Peck could have
`
`learned from others there. And, Mr. Peck’s testimony establishes that the beam
`
`blade he allegedly worked on was actually designed, in relevant part, by Adriaan
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Swanepoel and Swanepoel’s VariFlex software. Indeed, and crucial to the
`
`obviousness issues in this case, Mr. Swanepoel’s personal involvement was
`
`necessary when Trico later sought to add a spoiler to the blade. Id. at 69:25–70:7.
`
`There is no indication that Mr. Peck’s knowledge of how a “wiper designer” would
`
`have designed a beam blade in 1997 is based on anything other than Mr.
`
`Swanepoel’s explanation of how his proprietary software works.1 Therefore, the
`
`only “wiper designer” about whom Mr. Peck may be qualified to opine is Mr.
`
`Swanepoel himself (whom Mr. Peck described as an “inventor”), or someone
`
`trained by Mr. Swanepoel—not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`II. MR. PECK’S OPINIONS ON CONSUMER DEMAND AND
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY HIS
`EXPERTISE
`
`Petitioner attempts to admit paragraphs 15, 18, and 26 of Mr. Peck’s
`
`declaration as both lay opinion testimony and expert testimony. But opinion
`
`1 Petitioner argues that Mr. Peck’s experience “qualifies him to testify that
`
`mechanical engineers were capable of performing FEA [finite element analysis]
`
`long prior to 1997.” Petitioner’s Opposition at 3. This is neither relevant nor in
`
`dispute. VariFlex was not a generalized FEA tool applicable throughout the field of
`
`mechanical engineering; it designed beam blades specifically. Nowhere in the
`
`Petition did Petitioner assert that it would have been obvious to apply known FEA
`
`tools to modify beam blades, much less to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony must be classified as lay or expert testimony, not both, even if a single
`
`witness may separately give both kinds of testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 701(c) &
`
`advisory committee’s notes. Mr. Peck testifies that (i) Trico’s Innovision “was a
`
`success” and “demand this high constitutes a success” (Ex. 1100 ¶ 15); (ii) that
`
`“there would [not] be any way to attribute the ‘customer demand’ … to the noise
`
`testing” (id. ¶ 18); and (iii) that “consumer demand for quiet wipers is [not] related
`
`… to the features described in any or each of these four patents” (id. ¶ 26). These
`
`are the kind of opinions that require commercial expertise to be admissible. See
`
`Motion at 5–6 (describing authorities).
`
`Petitioner does not argue that Mr. Peck has the commercial or economic
`
`expertise required to admit the challenged testimony under Rule 702. Instead,
`
`Petitioner claims that Mr. Peck may testify to such issues because “[a]n expert may
`
`base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of
`
`or personally observed.” Petitioner’s Opposition at 11 (alteration and emphasis in
`
`original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 703). But Rule 703 (titled “Bases of an Expert’s
`
`Opinion Testimony”) presumes that the witness be “[a]n expert”; the quoted text
`
`does not supplant the requirement that the witness be “qualified as an expert”
`
`under Rule 702. Since Petitioner has not satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 702, the
`
`testimony cannot be admitted. There is no reason to consider Rule 703.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`The challenged testimony is also not admissible as lay opinions; Rule 701(c)
`
`was meant to “eliminate the risk that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule
`
`702 will be evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an expert in lay
`
`witness clothing.” Fed. R. Evid. 701, advisory committee’s notes. Furthermore, lay
`
`opinion testimony must be “rationally based on the witness’s perception.” Id.
`
`701(a). As an engineer, Mr. Peck was not in any position to perceive sufficient
`
`bases for his conclusion that Trico’s Innovision was commercially successful.
`
`According to Petitioner, Mr. Peck’s conclusions regarding commercial success are
`
`based solely on Mr. Peck’s knowledge that Trico had to increase its manufacturing
`
`capacity. Petitioner’s Opposition at 11–12. But this one fact is not sufficient for a
`
`layman to rationally reach the more general conclusion that the product was
`
`commercially successful, particularly in any way relevant to this case. The
`
`testimony therefore should be excluded.
`
`DATED: January 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REPLY ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(c) was served via electronic mail on January 3, 2017, 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