throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2016-001591
`Patent No. 8,677,494
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01174 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner moves to exclude paragraphs
`
`159-66 of Dr. Medvidovic’s Declaration (Ex. 2011) and exhibits 2016, 2020, 2022,
`
`2024, and 2025 submitted by Patent Owner. Petitioner objected to these exhibits on
`
`Aug. 19, 2016. (Paper 18.)
`
`I.
`
`PARAGRAPHS 159-66 OF THE MEDVIDOVIC DECLARATION (EX. 2011)
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions on licensing (paragraphs 159-60) and a purported
`
`nexus with the challenged claims (paragraphs 161-66) should be struck because
`
`they are outside the scope of Dr. Medvidovic’s technical expertise and are not
`
`based on reliable facts or methods. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic performed no independent investigation or analysis
`
`concerning any Finjan licenses. (Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 159-60; Ex. 1100, Medvidovic
`
`Dep. at 65:8-66:17.) In fact, Dr. Medvidovic (1) did not cite or attach any Finjan
`
`licenses as exhibits; (2) did not identify the amount paid under any Finjan license;
`
`(3) did not identify the number of patents licensed by Finjan to any of its licensees
`
`(3) merely relied on attorney-relayed information; and (4) admitted that additional
`
`analysis would be required to prove infringement by the licensees. (Ex. 1100,
`
`Medvidovic Dep. at 65:8-66:24, 68:18-70:1, 71:9-73:8.) Expert testimony based
`
`only on attorney-relayed facts is unreliable. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00080, Paper 44, at *38-39 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2016) (finding alleged
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`evidence of nexus to be merely attorney argument where counsel provided the
`
`annotated evidence and the witness had merely relied on the attorney provided
`
`evidence to provide his opinion). Because Dr. Medvidovic identifies no other basis
`
`for his opinions concerning Finjan licenses, paragraphs 159-60 should be excluded
`
`on this basis alone. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s licensing opinions are also deficient because they provide
`
`neither adequate evidence nor sufficient analysis to show nexus. See Apple,
`
`CBM2015-00080, Paper 44 at *36-37. The mere existence of a license is
`
`insufficient to establish nexus. See, e.g., In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282,
`
`1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Dr. Medvidovic admitted that at least some if not all of
`
`Finjan’s licenses are portfolio licenses that cover multiple patents. (Ex. 1100,
`
`Medvidovic Dep. at 66:2-17.) Furthermore, Dr. Medvidovic admitted that he
`
`performed no analysis of what portion of any license payment, if any, was
`
`allocable to the ’494 patent. (Id. at 65:17-20.) Accordingly, Dr. Medvidovic’s
`
`licensing opinions are unreliable and unhelpful to the Board. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702, 703.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions concerning a purported nexus between the
`
`challenged claims and Finjan’s alleged evidence of secondary considerations
`
`(paragraphs 161-66) should be excluded for similar reasons. See Graftech Int’l
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Techs, Inc., 652 Fed. Appx. 973, 978-79 (Fed. Cir. June 17,
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`2016) (nexus must exist between the claimed invention and the commercial
`
`success). Dr. Medvidovic also did not analyze whether the allegedly infringing
`
`products contained non-patented features, or what portion, if any, of the accused
`
`infringers’ revenues were attributable to the claimed inventions. (Ex. 1100,
`
`Medvidovic Dep. at 75:5-16, 65:17-20, 81:23-84:19.) Similarly, Dr. Medvidovic
`
`did not provide any market share analysis for purposes of his opinions. Universal
`
`Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-01106, Paper 49 at *25
`
`(PTAB Dec. 15, 2015) (finding dollar amounts of sales did not establish
`
`commercial success where patentee did not discuss or present market share
`
`information); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding insufficient
`
`information to determine commercial success where patentee indicated only the
`
`number of units sold without any indication as to whether it represented a
`
`substantial quantity in the market); see Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 161-66.) Without such
`
`evidence, paragraphs 161-66 of the Medvidovic Declaration are unreliable and
`
`should be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703.
`
`II. THE DAVIDSON TRANSCRIPT (EX. 2016) SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`The transcript for the deposition of Jack Davidson in Symantec Corp. v.
`
`Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01892, should be excluded because it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay. (See Ex. 2016; Fed. R. Evid. 802.)
`
`Exhibit 2016 contains out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`matter asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801. For example, Finjan relies on Dr.
`
`Davidson’s characterizations of Swimmer to support Finjan’s interpretations of
`
`Swimmer. (Paper 17 at 22-23, 33-34, 40.) Patent Owner did not argue that a
`
`hearsay exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner may try to argue that
`
`the Davidson transcript is a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8).
`
`But a public office record is admissible only if it sets out office activities, a matter
`
`observed while under a legal duty to report, or fact findings from an authorized
`
`investigation. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). A deposition transcript does not “set out”
`
`office activities or matters observed under a duty to report and are not fact findings
`
`from an authorized investigation.
`
`III. THE WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF “LOGFILE” (EX. 2020) SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED
`The Wikipedia entry that purportedly displays an explanation of “logfile”
`
`(Ex. 2020) should be excluded because it is irrelevant hearsay with no applicable
`
`hearsay exception and because it lacks authentication. Patent Owner relies on
`
`Exhibit 2020 in its Response and in the Declaration of Dr. Medvidovic. (Paper 17
`
`at 30-31; Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 62, 107, 121.)
`
`Exhibit 2020 is a Wikipedia page for “logfile,” which Patent Owner relies on
`
`to provide the definition of “logfile” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`1996-1997. (Paper 17 at 31; Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 62, 107, 121.) Evidence is relevant if
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`“it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
`
`evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Exhibit 2020 bears no publication date, was retrieved
`
`on June 21, 2016, and was last modified on January 18, 2016, nearly 20 years after
`
`the alleged priority date of the challenged patent claims. (Ex. 2020 at 1, 3.) Exhibit
`
`2020 is not probative of how “logfile” would have been understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in 1996-1997 and should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 401-
`
`402.
`
`Exhibit 2020 is also an out-of-court statement on a web page offered for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted. Patent Owner quotes from Exhibit 2020 to demonstrate
`
`a log file’s alleged relationship with “an audit trail.” (Paper 17 at 30-31; Ex. 2011
`
`at ¶¶ 62, 107, 121.) Exhibit 2020 as used by the Patent Owner is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, and Patent Owner did not argue that a hearsay exception applies. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 802; see Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research and Development Co. of the Hebrew
`
`Univ. of Jerusalem, Case IPR2013-00219, Paper 16, at 41-42, 45-48, 51-52 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 22, 2014) (excluding portions of a Wikipedia article and parts of expert
`
`testimony based on the Wikipedia article on hearsay and authentication grounds).
`
`The most obvious hearsay exception that might apply here is the learned treatise
`
`exception, which requires that the publication be established as a reliable authority
`
`either through expert testimony or judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 803(18). Patent
`
`Owner has not shown that the Wikipedia page of Exhibit 2020 is reliable or
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`technically accurate, or that its contents accurately reflect the state of the art in
`
`1996-1997 (as opposed to 2016), so the learned treatise exception does not apply.
`
`Patent Owner also has not produced evidence showing who authored Exhibit
`
`2020 or that Exhibit 2020 is what it purports to be. Nor has Patent Owner
`
`presented evidence that Dr. Medvidovic, or any other witness, had first-hand
`
`knowledge of Exhibit 2020. Patent Owner failed to authenticate Exhibit 2020. Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 901; see Sony Corp., Case IPR2013-00219, Paper 16, at 44 n.16, 45.
`
`Exhibit 2020 should be excluded.
`
`IV. THE TECHTERMS.COM DEFINITION OF “LOGFILE” (EX. 2022) SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED
`Techterms.com’s purported definition of logfile should be excluded because
`
`it is irrelevant hearsay with no applicable hearsay exception, and because it lacks
`
`authentication. Patent Owner relies on Exhibit 2022 in its Response and in Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s Declaration. (Paper 17 at 30-31; Ex. 2011 at ¶ 112.)
`
`Exhibit 2022 is a techterms.com definition relied on by Patent Owner to
`
`show the definition of “logfile” as it allegedly relates to a database and how
`
`“logfile” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in 1996-1997.
`
`(Paper 17 at 30-31; Ex. 2011 at ¶ 112.) Evidence is relevant if “it has a tendency to
`
`make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401. Exhibit 2022 bears a 2016 copyright date and was last updated April 14,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`2010, nearly 15 years after the alleged priority date of the challenged patent. (Ex.
`
`2020 at 1, 3.) Accordingly, Exhibit 2022 is not probative of how “logfile” or audit
`
`trail would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1996-
`
`1997 and should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 401-402; Ex. 2011 at ¶ 35 (“Counsel
`
`has informed me, and I understand, that the [POSA] is a hypothetical person who
`
`is presumed to be familiar with the relevant scientific field and its literature at the
`
`time of the invention.”).)
`
`Exhibit 2022 is also an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted. Patent Owner cites Exhibit 2022 to support its description of a log
`
`file’s structure, particularly as it relates to a database. (Paper 17 at 30-31; Ex. 2011
`
`at ¶ 112.) Exhibit 2022 as used by the Patent Owner is inadmissible hearsay, and
`
`Patent Owner did not argue that a hearsay exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`The most obvious hearsay exception that might apply here is the learned treatise
`
`exception, which requires that the publication be established as a reliable authority
`
`either through expert testimony or judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 803(18). Patent
`
`Owner has not established that techterms.com is reliable or technically accurate or
`
`shown that the techterms.com information reflects the knowledge of a person
`
`skilled in the art in 1996-1997, so the learned treatise exception does not apply.
`
`Patent Owner also has not produced evidence that Exhibit 2022 is what it
`
`purports to be. Nor has Patent Owner presented any evidence that Dr. Medvidovic,
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`or any other witness, had first-hand knowledge of Exhibit 2022. Patent Owner
`
`failed to authenticate Exhibit 2022. Fed. R. Evid. 901. Exhibit 2022 should be
`
`excluded.
`
`V. FINJAN, INC. V. WEBSENSE, INC. MATERIALS (EXS. 2024 & 2025) ARE
`INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT, AND POTENTIALLY CONFUSING
`Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration in support of Finjan’s opening claim
`
`construction brief (Ex. 2024) and Finjan’s infringement contentions (Ex. 2025),
`
`filed in Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01353, should be excluded
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 802, 402, and 403.
`
`First, these exhibits contain out-of-court statements offered for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801. For example, Finjan relies on a
`
`declaration submitted with its claim construction briefing (Ex. 2024) to support Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s construction of “database.” (Ex. 2011 at ¶ 125.) Finjan also offers a
`
`claim chart drafted by its attorneys (Ex. 2025) to support its assertion and Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s assertion that Websense’s products embody the ’494 patent. (Paper
`
`17 at 57; Ex. 2011 at ¶ 161.)
`
`Patent Owner did not argue that a hearsay exception applies. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. Patent Owner may try to argue that the claim chart and briefing constitute
`
`public records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). But a public office record
`
`is admissible only if it sets out office activities, a matter observed while under a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`
`legal duty to report, or fact findings from an authorized investigation. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`803(8). A claim chart and declaration in support of claim construction briefing do
`
`not “set out” office activities or matters observed under a duty to report and are not
`
`fact findings from an authorized investigation. At most, they are disputed evidence
`
`with inadmissible hearsay statements by parties not involved in this proceeding.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).
`
`Exhibits 2024 and 2025 should also be excluded because they are irrelevant,
`
`unfairly prejudicial, and potentially confusing. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. In
`
`particular, Dr. Medvidovic’s district court declaration includes opinions prepared
`
`under a different claim construction standard than that which will be applied in this
`
`case. (Ex. 2024.) And Finjan’s made-for-litigation infringement contentions do not
`
`prove infringement and do not establish nexus, and are therefore not probative.
`
`(Ex. 2025; See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2015-00080, Paper 44 at *36-37
`
`(PTAB Aug. 26, 2016).) Accordingly, Exhibits 2024 and 2025 should be excluded.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, paragraphs 159-66 of Dr. Medvidovic’s
`
`Declaration (Ex. 2011) and Exhibits 2016, 2020, 2022, 2024, and 2025 should be
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`Dated: January 9, 2017
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I certify that this Motion complies with the
`
`
`
`type-volume limits of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v) because it contains 9 pages,
`
`excluding the parts that are exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`By:
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2017
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2016-00159
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on January 9,
`
`2017, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE was served by filing this document through the E2E System and via
`
`electronic mail upon the following counsel of record:
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: (212) 715-7502
`Fax: (212) 715-8302
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
` & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Phone: (206) 883-2925
`Fax: (206) 883-2699
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`
`
`
`990 Marsh Road
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`Phone: (650) 752-1712
`
`
`Fax: (650) 752-1812
`
`
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Kim
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`Phone: 650.397.9567
`
`
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,450

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket