`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2016-00449
`Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`Paper No. 42
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Bradium’s Exhibits 2016-2018, 2021, 2030, 2032, 2035-2036,
`2039, 2044-2049, 2051-2053, and 2063 Should be Excluded ............. 1
`The Challenged Exhibits ............................................................ 2
`1.
`The Challenged Exhibits are Inadmissible as Hearsay ............. 4
`2.
`Challenged Exhibits are Incomplete and Misleading ................ 6
`3.
`III. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`i
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) hereby submits its
`
`Motion to Exclude inadmissible evidence proffered by Patent Owner Bradium
`
`5
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Bradium”) (Exhibits 2016-2018, 2021, 2030, 2032, 2035-
`
`2036, 2039, 2044-2049, 2051-2053, 2059, and 2063). Microsoft filed timely
`
`objections to these exhibits on November 18, 2016 (Paper 19). Bradium’s
`
`arguments for secondary indicia of non-obviousness, instead of presenting legally
`
`competent evidence, attempt to corroborate the interested testimony of Bradium’s
`
`10
`
`co-owner Isaac Levanon (Ex. 2004) with inadmissible hearsay, including several
`
`press releases or reports generated at the direction of Mr. Levanon himself.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Bradium’s Exhibits 2016-2018, 2021, 2030, 2032, 2035-2036, 2039,
`2044-2049, 2051-2053, and 2063 Should be Excluded
`
`15
`
`The contents of Exhibits 2016-2018, 2021, 2030, 2032, 2035-2036, 2039,
`
`2044-2049, 2051-2053, 2059, and 2063 are inadmissible as hearsay. Federal Rule
`
`of Evidence (FRE) 802. The challenged exhibits meet FRE 801’s definition of
`
`hearsay as each is being offered by Bradium for the truth of the matter asserted
`
`therein. Many of the challenged exhibits are not only hearsay, but hearsay within
`
`20
`
`hearsay. FRE 801, 805. Because Bradium cannot establish any exceptions to the
`
`hearsay rule for the challenged exhibits, they are inadmissible. FRE 801-03, 805.
`
`1
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`1.
`
`The Challenged Exhibits
`a.
`Exhibits 2016 and 2017 are simply printouts of webpages purporting to
`
`Third-Party Statistics Webpages (Exhibits 2016-2017)
`
`
`
`
`
`contain statistics about Microsoft Research and Development expenses, without
`
`5
`
`any disclosure of the underlying sources. Paper 19, ¶¶ 1-2. For example, Ex. 2017
`
`contains a disclaimer reading “source information for logged in users only,” but
`
`Bradium failed to provide any such source information. Bradium’s expert does not
`
`rely on these webpage printouts, nor does Bradium itself even provide any
`
`explanation of what they are other than an attorney declaration stating that the
`
`10
`
`exhibits were retrieved from a particular internet location on a particular date.
`
`Bradium cites these exhibits as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted (i.e.
`
`Microsoft’s R&D spending patterns). Paper 16 at 57.
`
`As for Exhibit 2018, it is not even clear from either the exhibit itself or the
`
`Patent Owner Response what this exhibit is, but it appears to simply be a
`
`15
`
`fragmentary excerpt of an internet search result, again without an accompanying
`
`copy of the actual linked document, without which the short excerpt makes no
`
`sense. Paper 19, ¶ 3. Nevertheless, Bradium cites the short excerpt as evidence of
`
`the truth of the matter asserted, specifically that Frost and Sullivan allegedly
`
`offered “praise” for 3DVU. Paper 16 at 57-58. The hyperlink contained in
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Bradium’s attorney declaration (Ex. 2060, ¶ 7) shows that the page is simply a
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`search result linking to a report which Bradium chose not to submit.
`
`b.
`
`3DVU Press Releases (Exhibits 2021, 2030, 2032, 2039,
`2044-2049, and 2063
`
`Bradium also cites various press releases (and website reprints of press
`
`5
`
`
`
`releases) in support of its arguments for secondary indicia of non-obviousness. See
`
`generally Paper 16 at 6, 55-61. For example, Bradium cites 3DVU’s own press
`
`releases, rather than independent evidence, as evidence that 3DVU received certain
`
`10
`
`awards (Paper 16 at 6, citing Ex. 2021), as evidence that 3DVU licensed “the
`
`technology of the ‘506 patent” (Paper 16 at 6, citing Ex. 2030, 2032), and in
`
`support of its assertions (supported by no other evidence) that 3DVU’s Navi2Go
`
`navigation product became a “bestseller.” Paper 16 at 60-61, citing Ex. 2048.
`
`Microsoft objected to these exhibits in Paper 19, ¶¶ 4-5, 10-16, and 21.
`
`15
`
`c.
`
`C.E. Unterberg Towbin Reports (Exs. 2035, 2036)
`
`
`
`Mr. Levanon’s declaration (Ex. 2004)- but not the petition itself- cites Exs.
`
`2035 and 2036, which are purportedly unsworn third-party analyses prepared at
`
`Mr. Levanon’s request by an investment banker hired by Mr. Levanon. Paper 19,
`
`¶¶ 8-9. The purported relevance of these documents is not explained in either
`
`20
`
`Paper 16 or Ex. 2004, but these documents appear to have been prepared in order
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`to promote Mr. Levanon’s desire to be acquired by Microsoft. Bradium has not
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`offered sworn testimony from the authors of these documents.
`
`d.
`
`Japanese Car Navigation System Brochures (Exs. 2051-
`2053)
`
`5
`
`Exs. 2051-2053 are purported car navigation system brochures written
`
`almost entirely in Japanese. Paper 19, ¶¶ 17-19. According to Mr. Levanon,
`
`several pages of these exhibits describe the purported characteristics of car
`
`navigation systems that Mr. Levanon claims “had all of the 3DVU patented
`
`features” (Ex. 2004, ¶ 50), and Mr. Levanon further asserts that certain pages of
`
`10
`
`these brochures are “exclusively devoted to 3DVU technology and its benefits.”
`
`Id., ¶¶ 55-56. Yet none of the substantive portions of these brochures have been
`
`translated, and the only translation provided- by Bradium’s counsel, not an
`
`independent translator- is of short boilerplate legal notice paragraphs.
`
`The Challenged Exhibits are Inadmissible as Hearsay
`
`2.
`As discussed above, each of the challenged exhibits is an unsworn, out-of-
`
`15
`
`court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, these
`
`exhibits are hearsay and thus inadmissible under FRE 802. Bradium cannot show
`
`that any hearsay exception applies to these exhibits. Bradium cannot rely on either
`
`FRE 803(18) (statements in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets) or FRE
`
`20
`
`702, because its expert, Dr. Agouris, tellingly did not opine on any of these
`
`exhibits. Nor has Bradium provided any foundational evidence to admit the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`challenged exhibits as business records under FRE 803(6). Bradium has not
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`established that any declarant is unavailable under FRE 804. No foundational
`
`requirements for any other hearsay exception or exclusion have been established.
`
`Nor can such evidence be admitted under FRE 807, the “Residual
`
`5
`
`Exception” to the hearsay rule. In order for a statement to be admitted under FRE
`
`807, the statement (1) must have “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness,” (2) be “offered as evidence of a material fact,” (3) be “more
`
`probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the
`
`proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts,” and (4) admitting the statement
`
`10
`
`must “best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.” Bradium
`
`cannot establish these requirements. For example, the press releases and short
`
`news articles that Bradium seeks to rely on, as well as the C.E. Unterberg Towbin
`
`reports prepared at Mr. Levanon’s request, are inherently self-serving and
`
`unreliable and thus fail the “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” test. Nor
`
`15
`
`does Bradium show that such evidence is more probative on the point for which it
`
`is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable
`
`efforts. Indeed, Bradium does not explain the probativeness of the unsworn
`
`analysis in Exs. 2035 and 2036 at all. For example, Bradium fails to show that it
`
`could not have obtained direct evidence of any alleged awards and the relative
`
`20
`
`prestige of those awards from the award grantors themselves, rather than relying on
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Levanon’s boasting, or obtained actual 3DVU sales figures- which Mr.
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Levanon presumably has access to. And in view of the inherently unreliable nature
`
`of such evidence, admitting it does not “serve the interests of justice.”
`
`Challenged Exhibits are Incomplete and Misleading
`
`3.
`In addition to being inadmissible as hearsay for the same reasons, Exs. 2016-
`
`5
`
`2018 and 2051-2053 should be excluded as incomplete and misleading under FRE
`
`106 and 403. Exs. 2016-2018 were and are incomplete and misleading because
`
`they failed to identify their source data, while Exs. 2051-2053 are misleading and
`
`incomplete because they contain no translation of the substantive portions of the
`
`10
`
`exhibits, instead expecting the Board to rely on Mr. Levanon’s self-serving
`
`assertions about what they say. Bradium failed to supplement its evidence relating
`
`to these exhibits even after Microsoft served its objections.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner Microsoft respectfully requests that the
`
`15
`
`Board grant the present motion and exclude Patent Owner Bradium’s inadmissible
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s 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
`
`7
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00449, Patent No. 8,924,506 B2
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE has been served in its
`
`entirety this 24th day of March, 2017 by electronic mail on the Patent Owner via
`
`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
`
`1
`
`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 24, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`