`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2016-00448
`Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MR. LAVI’S TESTIMONY (EXHIBIT 1017) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXCLUDED ................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Summary of Facts ................................................................................. 1
`B.
`Discussion ............................................................................................ 4
`III. DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY DR. MICHALSON ARE
`ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE 703 .................................................................. 7
`A.
`Exhibit 1020 ......................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Exhibit 1022 ....................................................................................... 10
`C.
`Exhibit 1023 ....................................................................................... 10
`D.
`Exhibits 1027-1028 ............................................................................ 11
`E.
`Exhibits 1029 and 1031 ...................................................................... 12
`F.
`Exhibit 1030 ....................................................................................... 13
`IV. DR. MICHALSON’S REDIRECT TESTIMONY WAS FAIR AND
`PERMISSIBLE ............................................................................................. 14
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15
`
`V.
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`Petitioner Microsoft provides its Opposition to Patent Owner Bradium’s Motion to
`
`Exclude Microsoft’s evidence.
`
`5
`
`II. MR. LAVI’S TESTIMONY (EXHIBIT 1017) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`Given the unique circumstances present in this case, the Board should not
`
`exclude Mr. Lavi’s testimony.
`
`Summary of Facts
`
`A.
`The ‘343 Patent names two inventors. The first, Isaac Levanon, owns 50%
`
`10
`
`of Bradium through a family trust, while the other, Yonatan Lavi, is an Israeli
`
`citizen who has no relationship with either party or interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. The allegedly inventive activity relating to the ‘343 Patent claims took
`
`place around 1999 and 2000 while Mr. Lavi worked at 3DVU, Inc., a small
`
`15
`
`company which Mr. Levanon admits that he closed “around 2010.” Ex. 2004,
`
`¶ 94. Delaware public records confirm that 3DVU’s (formerly Flyover
`
`Technologies) corporate status has been “void” since 2011. Ex. 1033 (Flyover
`
`Technologies and 3DVU, Inc. Delaware Secretary of State records search results).
`
`Even though he is the co-inventor on the challenged patent, Bradium did not
`
`20
`
`disclose Mr. Lavi as a person with knowledge of facts relevant to the case in its
`
`F.R.Civ.P. 26 initial disclosures. Bradium also informed District Judge Andrews
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`that neither it nor its counsel had any relationship with Mr. Lavi. Ex. 1034 (C.A.
`
`15-31-RGA, Plaintiff Bradium’s Feb. 25, 2016 Rule 16(a)(1) Initial Disclosures);
`
`Ex. 1035 (C.A. 15-31-RGA, Feb. 3, 2016 hearing transcript) at 5:24-7:9. Upon
`
`learning that Bradium had no relationship with Mr. Lavi, and that Bradium’s
`
`5
`
`counsel was not representing Mr. Lavi, Microsoft’s counsel located him in Israel at
`
`its own expense. Mr. Lavi signed a declaration (Ex. 1017) after Microsoft’s
`
`counsel informed Mr. Lavi about standard Board discovery procedures including
`
`depositions of declarants.
`
`After Microsoft filed Mr. Lavi’s declaration, Bradium threatened retaliation
`
`10
`
`against Mr. Lavi. Bradium accused Mr. Lavi of disclosing unspecified 3DVU
`
`confidential information, despite the fact that Mr. Lavi testified on the same topics
`
`Mr. Levanon did in his public declaration, and despite 3DVU having been out of
`
`business for about seven years, and nonexistent as a corporate entity for six. Ex.
`
`1039 (C. Coulson Feb. 9, 2017 letter to C. Ng). Bradium insisted that Microsoft’s
`
`15
`
`counsel send Bradium’s threat letter to Mr. Lavi. Id.
`
`Allegations of confidentiality breaches are serious, and Microsoft took them
`
`seriously from the beginning. Microsoft agreed to work with Bradium on the issue
`
`and asked Bradium to identify, with specificity, the confidential information they
`
`claimed Mr. Lavi had disclosed, and the basis for the alleged confidentiality. Ex.
`
`20
`
`1040 (E. Day Feb. 9, 2017 email to C. Coulson). To date, Bradium still has not
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`identified any allegedly confidential information that Mr. Lavi’s declaration
`
`disclosed.1
`
`Microsoft also promptly communicated Bradium’s deposition request to Mr.
`
`Lavi, who then indicated he did not want to travel to the United States to be
`
`5
`
`deposed because he was concerned about legal and other retaliation from Mr.
`
`Levanon. Microsoft informed Bradium about Mr. Levanon’s unwillingness to
`
`testify and proposed that the parties jointly seek a Letter of Request to take Mr.
`
`Lavi’s deposition in Israel, a process that normally takes 60-75 days, but can be
`
`accomplished in considerably less time using expedited procedures. Microsoft also
`
`10
`
`offered to reimburse Bradium for reasonable travel costs associated with its
`
`counsel’s travel to take the deposition. Ex. 1041 (E. Day Feb. 27, 2017 email to C.
`
`Coulson). Bradium rejected this proposal.
`
`When the parties sought Board guidance, the Board requested that the
`
`parties discuss an agreement to address Mr. Lavi’s concerns about retaliation.
`
`15
`
`Bradium then sent Microsoft a proposal, which did the opposite. Bradium’s
`
`proposal would have required Mr. Lavi to agree that Bradium, Levanon, and
`
`1 Bradium later raised an issue relating to a Denso license, but Mr. Lavi did not
`discuss the Denso license in his declaration, and has never seen this license. Mr.
`Lavi mentioned Denso in his declaration in no more detail or specificity than Mr.
`Levanon did in his public declaration. Compare Ex. 1017, ¶¶ 20-22 with Ex.
`2004/2072, ¶¶ 43-47, 50-61. Bradium never responded to Microsoft’s request to
`explain how Mr. Lavi’s testimony concerning Denso could be confidential in light
`of Mr. Levanon’s public declaration. Ex. 1044 (E. Day Feb. 14, 2017 letter to C.
`Coulson).
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`3DVU retained “the right to bring a legal action against Lavi relating to his
`
`provision of information to Microsoft or the public filing of Exhibit 1017.” Ex.
`
`1042 (C. Coulson Mar. 12, 2017 email to E. Day and attached proposed “limited
`
`waiver agreement”). Microsoft promptly sent Bradium a revised version of this
`
`5
`
`proposal which insulated Mr. Lavi from being sued for providing testimony in this
`
`proceeding, but Bradium never responded to this proposal. Ex. 1045 (E. Day Mar.
`
`13, 2017 email to C. Coulson, with attachment).
`
`B. Discussion
`While Microsoft diligently attempted to obtain a deposition of Mr. Lavi, a
`
`10
`
`third-party witness outside of Microsoft’s control, the circumstances of this case do
`
`not warrant the wholesale exclusion of Mr. Lavi’s testimony. While the Board’s
`
`rules authorize cross-examination of declarants as routine discovery (37 CFR 42.51
`
`(b)(1)(ii)), there is no per se rule that declarations must, in all cases, be excluded
`
`from the record in the event that the declarant refuses to be cross-examined. In this
`
`15
`
`case, Microsoft respectfully submits that in view of the totality of the
`
`circumstances, as discussed above, the Board should exercise its discretion not to
`
`exclude Mr. Lavi’s declaration.
`
`Microsoft only contacted Mr. Lavi after Bradium failed to disclose a co-
`
`inventor (i.e., a key witness) in the litigation, and only after Bradium said Mr. Lavi
`
`20
`
`was not associated with Bradium and was not represented by their counsel. When
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Bradium first requested a deposition of Mr. Lavi, that request was accompanied by
`
`a threat of legal action against Mr. Lavi if he testified in this proceeding—even
`
`though Mr. Lavi’s declaration discussed the same things that Mr. Levanon did in
`
`his declaration. Given the facts discussed above, Bradium’s allegations of
`
`5
`
`misconduct by Mr. Lavi are baseless, but they were successful in scaring Mr. Lavi
`
`into not willingly testifying. To be clear, Mr. Lavi is not testifying in this
`
`proceeding because of Bradium’s threats.
`
`None of the cases cited by Bradium involves such conduct by the party
`
`seeking to exclude the evidence. For example, the Petitioner in HTC Corp. et al v.
`
`10
`
`NFC Technology, LLC, IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2015) did not
`
`threaten the witness whose declaration testimony it sought to exclude with a
`
`meritless lawsuit in retaliation for his testimony. Rather, the Petitioner in HTC
`
`Corp. only sought to strike the testimony at issue after the parties worked together
`
`extensively to seek the declarant’s testimony through the provisions of the Hague
`
`15
`
`Convention. IPR2014-01198, Paper 34 (PTAB Sep. 2, 2015).2 Bradium has made
`
`no such efforts to cooperate to obtain the witness’ testimony in this case; instead, it
`
`actively opposed Microsoft’s efforts to do so. After the Board asked the parties to
`
`2 Obtaining testimony in France, the residence of the witness at issue in HTC
`Corp., is also considerably more difficult than obtaining testimony in Israel, Mr.
`Lavi’s residence, because France has a “blocking” statute, while Israel does not.
`IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 at 1-2 (discussing French blocking statute); compare
`Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services AG, IPR2015-01786, Paper
`61(PTAB Aug. 25, 2016) (ordering deposition in Israel over objection).
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`discuss a possible solution to persuade Mr. Lavi to testify voluntarily, Bradium
`
`made sure he would not testify by including an explicit threat to sue Mr. Lavi in
`
`its proposed “limited waiver.” Excluding Mr. Lavi’s testimony under these
`
`circumstances rewards and incentivizes such behavior.
`
`5
`
`The Board has broad discretion to determine the proper course of conduct in
`
`a proceeding for any situation not otherwise covered by the Board’s rules. 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.5(a). Under the unique circumstances in this case, Microsoft
`
`respectfully proposes that the appropriate course of conduct is not exclusion, but
`
`that the Board should consider the full scope of the circumstances surrounding Mr.
`
`10
`
`Lavi, including the absence of a deposition as well as Bradium’s own role in
`
`dissuading Mr. Lavi from testifying, when deciding what weight to give Mr. Lavi’s
`
`testimony.
`
`Even if the Board is inclined to exclude Mr. Lavi’s declaration, the relief
`
`requested by Bradium is overbroad and unreasonable. Bradium argues that nine
`
`15
`
`pages of Petitioner’s Reply and fifteen paragraphs of Ex. 1016 should be
`
`“excluded, struck, and expunged.” Yet most of this discussion contains only
`
`passing references to Ex. 1017 (or no reference at all, e.g. Ex. 1016, ¶ 50) along
`
`with extensive discussion of other, independent evidence. For example, Ex. 1016,
`
`paragraph 52 addresses Ex. 1017 only in a footnote, while paragraphs 109, 111,
`
`20
`
`and 131 each contain only a single sentence citing Mr. Lavi’s testimony in addition
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`to other evidence (much of it offered by Bradium) which independently supports
`
`Dr. Michalson’s opinions. Bradium gives no reason in its motion why Mr. Lavi’s
`
`unavailability for deposition should be grounds for excluding independent
`
`evidence or arguments or expert opinion relying on independent evidence—and no
`
`5
`
`legal rationale exists for such exclusion. Because the Board is perfectly capable of
`
`disregarding excluded evidence, there is no need to strike, redact, or expunge all
`
`citations to such evidence, particularly when such measures would create a risk of
`
`improperly excluding discussion based at least in part on other evidence whose
`
`admissibility is undisputed. As to Ex. 1017 itself, Dr. Michalson need only have
`
`10
`
`reasonably relied on Mr. Lavi’s testimony for Dr. Michalson’s opinions about this
`
`testimony to be considered. See discussion of FRE 703, infra.
`
`III. DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY DR. MICHALSON ARE
`ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE 703
`
`Patent Owner’s remaining hearsay objections ignore the fact that the
`
`15
`
`challenged exhibits explain the bases of some of Dr. Michalson’s opinions, and
`
`therefore may be considered by the Board under Federal Rule of Evidence 703
`
`even if otherwise inadmissible.3 FRE 703 provides that “[i]f experts in the
`
`particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an
`
`opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.”
`
`
`3 This statement should not be considered as an admission that the challenged
`exhibits are otherwise inadmissible, as discussed further in this Opposition.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Bradium does not dispute that Dr. Michalson relied on these exhibits in forming
`
`his opinions, nor does Bradium dispute whether an expert in the field would
`
`reasonably rely on these types of facts or data to form his opinions. Therefore,
`
`Bradium’s Motion to Exclude provides no reason to exclude Dr. Michalson’s
`
`5
`
`opinions relying on Exhibits 1020, 1022, 1023, and 1027-1031.
`
`Additionally, the documents themselves may be admitted to explain the
`
`basis of Dr. Michalson’s opinions. In a jury trial, FRE 703 allows for even
`
`otherwise inadmissible evidence to be disclosed if its “probative value in helping
`
`the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.”
`
`10
`
`However, in an IPR, because the Federal Rules of Evidence applicable to jury trials
`
`do not apply, the FRE 703 balancing test does not apply and the facts relied upon
`
`by the expert are generally admissible. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v.
`
`Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2015-00249, Paper 76 at 13-14 (PTAB June 2, 2016),
`
`citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(b). Because the Board “is not a lay jury, and has
`
`15
`
`significant experience in evaluating expert testimony, the danger of prejudice in
`
`[an inter partes review] is considerably lower than in a conventional district court
`
`trial.” SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-00680, Paper 57 at 28
`
`(PTAB Sep. 25, 2015). Here, even if the FRE 703 balancing test is applicable,
`
`Bradium fails to articulate any prejudice due to the admission of the challenged
`
`20
`
`exhibits, nor does Bradium dispute their probativeness. None of Exhibits 1020,
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`1022, 1023, and 1027-1031 were prepared for purposes of litigation, and Bradium
`
`had ample opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Michalson regarding any of these
`
`exhibits, had it chosen to do so. See generally Ex. 2078. Bradium’s objections are
`
`purely procedural, and Bradium does not raise any actual question as to the
`
`5
`
`authenticity or reliability of these documents. As explained further below, all of
`
`these challenged exhibits are highly probative to explain the basis of Dr.
`
`Michalson’s reply testimony.
`
`A. Exhibit 1020
`Ex. 1020 is a Fujitsu technical manual describing a “pen tablet” capable of
`
`10
`
`running various Windows operating systems, including Windows NT. Dr.
`
`Michalson discussed this exhibit in response to (1) Bradium’s proposed
`
`construction for “limited communication bandwidth computer device” which
`
`includes “a small client… such as PDAs [Personal Digital Assistants]” (Paper 20 at
`
`12-13), (2) Bradium’s argument that one specific embodiment of the Reddy
`
`15
`
`reference, the TerraVision II program, could not operate on such a “limited
`
`communication bandwidth computer device” (Id. at 24-25), and (3) Bradium’s
`
`citation of another SRI webpage (Ex. 2066, cited by Paper 20 at 2, 22, 25) noting
`
`that TerraVision II itself had been ported to Windows NT (Ex. 2066 at 2). Dr.
`
`Michalson testified that even if the Board considered only TerraVision II software
`
`20
`
`rather than the full scope of the teachings of Reddy, it would have still been
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`obvious to a POSITA that even that exact software could still operate on a laptop
`
`or tablet computer (PDA) because operating systems necessary to run the
`
`TerraVision software could have been and were in fact installed on such systems.
`
`Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 50-54. Ex. 1020 is probative on this point because Dr. Michalson
`
`5
`
`reasonably relied on it to support his opinion that such tablet systems capable of
`
`running TerraVision were not just hypothetically plausible, but actually existed.
`
`Exhibit 1022
`
`B.
`Ex. 1022 is a website published by the National Geospatial-Intelligence
`
`Agency explaining the operation of certain coordinate systems (e.g. UTM)
`
`10
`
`discussed in the Reddy reference. See Ex. 1004, p. 31, ¶ 27. Dr. Michalson
`
`reasonably utilized Ex. 1022 to explain well-known concepts relating to map
`
`coordinate systems and rebut Bradium’s arguments that using an “X, Y”
`
`coordinate system was somehow a novel invention in 1999 or 2000. Ex. 1016,
`
`¶¶ 86-93.
`
`15
`
`C. Exhibit 1023
`Ex. 1023 is a webpage from before the alleged invention of the ‘343 patent
`
`explaining the operation and origins of the “FXT1” file format which Bradium’s
`
`own exhibits admit that 3DVU used in the alleged prototype. See, e.g. Ex. 2020 at
`
`7/110; Ex. 1043. Dr. Michalson reasonably relied on Ex. 1023- in combination
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`with Bradium’s own evidence- as a basis for his opinions that the file format used
`
`by 3DVU was not novel.
`
`D. Exhibits 1027-1028
`Exs. 1027 and 1028 are product information pages for (1) the Bing Maps
`
`5
`
`Preview application accused by Bradium in related litigation, and (2) the Windows
`
`8.1 operating system required to operate that application. Dr. Michalson
`
`reasonably considered both exhibits to place Bradium’s infringement contentions
`
`accusing “all versions of the Bing Maps Preview app” in context and support his
`
`opinion that Bradium’s infringement allegations are inconsistent with its arguments
`
`10
`
`in this litigation. Ex. 1016, ¶ 30, citing Ex. 1026 at 1.
`
`Exs. 1027 and 1028 are also admissible non-hearsay. Both exhibits pre-date
`
`the filing of Bradium’s complaint against Microsoft and were easily publicly
`
`accessible on the main product pages for (1) the accused Bing Maps Preview
`
`application and (2) the operating system necessary to run it. Ex. 1043 (Butler
`
`15
`
`Decl.). Prior to filing its case against Microsoft, Bradium had a duty to conduct a
`
`reasonable inquiry based on available information to determine if its infringement
`
`allegations were well grounded in fact. Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780, 784
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, Exs. 1027 and 1028 demonstrate that Bradium knew
`
`or should have known when it filed its Complaint and its infringement contentions
`
`20
`
`that it was accusing software having the performance requirements shown in these
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`exhibits, which are inconsistent with its arguments in the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Indeed, Bradium should have submitted such evidence itself in accordance with 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.51(b)(1)(iii) when it served its Patent Owner Response containing its
`
`“limited communication bandwidth computer device” arguments.
`
`5
`
`Exhibits 1029 and 1031
`
`E.
`Ex. 1031 is an Intel Corp. reference guide listing the performance
`
`characteristics of Intel processors over time. Dr. Michalson explained that a
`
`POSITA would reasonably rely on such a summary to evaluate the capabilities of
`
`processors at a given time, and that such summaries are generally reflective of the
`
`10
`
`state of the art over time due to Intel’s well-known dominant position in the
`
`microprocessor market. Ex. 1016, p. 33, n. 6. Dr. Michalson further explained
`
`that Ex. 1031 supports his opinions that a POSITA could have implemented
`
`TerraVision II software on a laptop or tablet, even if the Board accepts Bradium’s
`
`erroneous proposed claim construction and distinction between different
`
`15
`
`embodiments of Reddy’s teachings, because the exhibit demonstrates that adequate
`
`processors were available for such devices at the time of the alleged invention. Ex.
`
`1016, ¶¶ 51, 132. Dr. Michalson also considered Ex. 1031 to support his opinions
`
`that Bradium’s infringement accusations are inconsistent with its positions in this
`
`IPR. Id., ¶ 30. Dr. Michalson considered Ex. 1029, which illustrates typical
`
`20
`
`speeds of common desktop PCs at the time, for a similar purpose. Therefore, Exs.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`1029 and 1031 are probative and admissible under FRE 703. While it is not
`
`necessary to show a hearsay exception, Ex. 1031 is also admissible under FRE
`
`803(17) as a list or compilation that the public or a reasonable person in the
`
`computer industry would reasonably rely on regarding processor speeds, in view of
`
`5
`
`Dr. Michalson’s unchallenged testimony that a POSITA would rely on such lists.
`
`Exhibit 1030
`
`F.
`Dr. Michalson reasonably considered Ex. 1030 to show, in response to
`
`Bradium’s arguments that the data structure claimed by the ‘343 Patent was novel
`
`and non-obvious, that the same data structure was already well-known and in use
`
`10
`
`prior to the alleged invention date. Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 74-75, citing Ex. 1030, p. 5. Ex.
`
`1030 is a technical paper describing the operation of the Microsoft TerraServer
`
`system first introduced in 1998. Dr. Michalson considered Ex. 1030 for its
`
`description of the 1998 TerraServer system itself to show the state of the art.
`
`Therefore, Bradium’s arguments regarding revision and copyright dates of Ex.
`
`15
`
`1030 (all of which are still before the ‘343 Patent’s December 2000 earliest
`
`claimed priority filing date) only go to weight, not admissibility.
`
`Bradium asserts (in a lengthy footnote, presumably to avoid the Board’s
`
`page limits) that Bradium may rely on Ex. 1030 even if the Board excludes it,
`
`citing FRE 801(d)(2). Paper 47 at 11, n. 5. However, while FRE 801(d)(2) allows
`
`20
`
`a party to admit a statement of a party-opponent, statements so admitted become
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`part of the evidentiary record and may be relied upon by all parties. The rule does
`
`not allow a party to selectively cite an exhibit for its own benefit while precluding
`
`the other side from relying on it. Bradium cites no authority for its position that
`
`the Board should simultaneously exclude Ex. 1030, yet still consider Bradium’s
`
`5
`
`arguments based on cherry-picked portions of the same exhibit.
`
`IV. DR. MICHALSON’S REDIRECT TESTIMONY WAS FAIR AND
`PERMISSIBLE
`
`Bradium’s effort to exclude Dr. Michalson’s redirect testimony is similarly
`
`meritless. As a general matter, unlike the jury trial case law cited by Bradium,
`
`10
`
`narrow procedural objections such as the form and foundation of questions posed
`
`to experts are of little value in an inter partes review where “the Board, sitting as a
`
`non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and
`
`assign appropriate weight to evidence presented.” Gnosis S.P.A. et al v. South
`
`Alabama Medical Science Found., IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20,
`
`15
`
`2014), citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941).
`
`Here, Bradium seeks to exclude Dr. Michalson’s entire redirect testimony
`
`(which contains numerous questions to which no objection was made) based on a
`
`handful of supposedly leading questions, such as whether Dr. Michalson applied
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard to his analysis. Paper 47 at
`
`20
`
`13, citing Ex. 2078 at 80:22-81:11. Bradium fails to explain why the entire
`
`redirect should be struck, other than an unsupported assertion that a handful of
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`exemplary questions “infected” the remaining redirect testimony. Paper 47 at 14.
`
`FRE 611 allows leading questions to be used to focus a witness’ attention to
`
`particular subject matter, in this case to relevant portions of lengthy exhibits from
`
`an unrelated proceeding introduced by Patent Owner for the first time during cross-
`
`5
`
`examination of Dr. Michalson. In this case, Microsoft directed Dr. Michalson’s
`
`attention to relevant portions of the document, ignored by Bradium during cross-
`
`examination, to establish background for non-leading questions explaining the
`
`differences between Bradium’s deficient secondary indicia arguments in this case
`
`and Dr. Michalson’s more extensive discussion in the unrelated IPR. See, e.g.
`
`10
`
`Ex. 2078 at 91:17-92:1. Such questioning was fair redirect to rebut Bradium’s
`
`attempt to misleadingly characterize Dr. Michalson’s prior testimony in that
`
`unrelated matter as inconsistent with his reply testimony in Ex. 1016.
`
`Bradium’s “foundation” objection (Paper 47, pp. 14-15) is not only trivial,
`
`but wrong because it ignores Dr. Michalson’s testimony that he was personally
`
`15
`
`familiar with the TerraServer reference at the time it was introduced in the late
`
`1990s. Ex. 2078 at 76:11-78:6.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner Microsoft respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny Bradium’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`20
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Respectfully submitted,
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Vinay Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Evan S. Day, Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`-16-
`
`Dated: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE has
`
`been served in its entirety this 31st day of March, 2017 by electronic mail on the
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Michael N. Zachary
`mzachary@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`1801 Page Mill Road, Ste 210
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Clifford Ulrich
`culrich@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Vinay Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Evan S. Day, Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`Patent Owner via its attorneys of record:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Christopher J. Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Bradiumiprservice@kenyon.com
`
`Dated: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`-1-
`
`