`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Exhibits 2051–2053 (Kenwood Car Navigation System Brochures)
`Should Not Be Excluded ................................................................................. 1
`
`Exhibit 2021 (Press Release Describing Frost & Sullivan Award) Should
`Not Be Excluded .............................................................................................. 6
`
`III. The Press Releases (Exhibits 2030, 2032, 2039, 2045–48, 2063) Should
`Not Be Excluded .............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Exhibits 2030 and 2032 (Press Releases Concerning Kenwood
`System) Should Not Be Excluded ......................................................... 7
`
`Exhibit 2039 Should Not Be Excluded ................................................. 7
`
`Exhibits 2045–2047 Should Not Be Excluded ..................................... 8
`
`Exhibit 2048 (Directions Magazine Press Release Titled “3DVU’s
`Mobile Navigation Best Seller on Sprint’s Shop) Should Not Be
`Excluded ................................................................................................ 9
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 2063 Should Not Be Excluded ................................................. 9
`
`IV. Exhibit 2044 (TechNode Article) Should Not Be Exluded ........................... 10
`
`V.
`
`Exhibits 2035 and 2036 (C.E. Unterberg Towbin Reports) Should Not Be
`Excluded ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`VI. Exhibit 2049 (VC Cafe Article) Should Not Be Excluded ........................... 12
`
`VII. Exhibit 2059 (Microsoft Website) Should Not Be Excluded ........................ 12
`
`VIII. Exhibits 2016–2017 (Microsoft R&D Spending) Should Not be Excluded . 13
`
`IX. Exhibit 2018 (Frost & Sullivan Website) Should Not Be Excluded ............. 13
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Petition for Inter Partes Review by Toyota Motors North America, Inc.
` IPR2014-00280, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2014) ................................................................... 5
`KW Plastics v. US. Can Co.,
`130 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (M.D. Ala. 2001) ..................................................................................... 4
`Mueller v. Abdnor,
`972 F.2d 931 (8th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 5
`United States v. Koch,
`625 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`F.R.E. 801 Advisory Committee Note, 1972 Proposed Rule, Note to Subdivision (c) .................. 4
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)........................................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)........................................................................................................................ 1
`F.R.E. 801(c) ................................................................................................................................... 4
`F.R.E. 801(d)(2) ............................................................................................................................ 13
`F.R.E. 801(d)(2) ............................................................................................................................ 13
`F.R.E. 803(3)................................................................................................................................... 4
`F.R.E. 803(6)................................................................................................................................... 2
`Treatises
`2 JOHN W. STRONG ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, § 249 at 101 (4th ed. 1992) .................... 5
`6 JOHN H. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, § 1770 at 259 (James H. Chadbourn rev. ed. 1976) .................. 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order dated July 27, 2016 (Paper 10)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Patent Owner Bradium Technologies LLC (“Bradium”)
`
`responds to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 42), which seeks to
`
`exclude twenty of Patent Owner’s Exhibits, Nos. 2016–18, 2021, 2030, 2032,
`
`2035–36, 2039, 2044–49, 2051–53, 2059, and 2063.1
`
`The Board should deny Microsoft’s motion. Microsoft’s hearsay objection
`
`fails because these exhibits are either Microsoft’s own statements or are used by
`
`Bradium for non-hearsay purposes. Microsoft’s objection to the completeness of
`
`the translations of Exhibits 2051–53 also fails, because Mr. Levanon relies on the
`
`English-language portions of the exhibits and the graphics and logos included in
`
`the exhibits. Also, the relevant and necessary portions of the exhibits were
`
`translated, and the accuracy of that translation is undisputed.
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBITS 2051–2053 (KENWOOD CAR NAVIGATION SYSTEM
`BROCHURES) SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibits 2051–2053 are Kenwood car navigation system brochures
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 In this motion, “F.R.E.” refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally
`apply to this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` f
`
`
`
`
`
` As explained below, FlyOver’s logos
`
`appear on Exhibits 2051–2053, and the brochures state that FlyOver’s proprietary
`
`technology is included in the products.
`
`The Board should not exclude Exhibits 2051–53, Kenwood (DENSO) car
`
`navigation system brochures, on either hearsay or completeness grounds, as
`
`Microsoft contends.
`
`Microsoft’s hearsay objection fails for several reasons. First, the documents
`
`are business documents, were created by Kenwood, and provided to Mr. Levanon.
`
`See F.R.E. 803(6) (business records exception to hearsay). Though as explained
`
`below the documents are not used for the truth of what they state, even if they were
`
`so used, the documents would be admissible.
`
`Second, Bradium does not rely on the brochures for the truth of what they
`
`state, for example that any particular 3DVU technology was present in the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Kenwood navigation system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Where Mr. Levanon does rely on the brochures, he does so only to show the
`
`dates of release of the Kenwood products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bradium relies on Mr. Levanon’s personal experience, not the Kenwood
`
`manuals, to explain DENSO’s success in using 3DVU technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` At deposition, Mr.
`
`Levanon again explained that the Kenwood (DENSO) automobile navigation
`
`systems included the invention. Ex. 1019 at 57:7–14.
`
`It is undisputed that the Kenwood manuals state that “[t]his product . . . uses
`
`FlyOver Technologies’ proprietary technology. ‘FlyOver’ and the ‘FlyOver’ logo
`
`are registered trademarks.” E.g., Ex. 2051 at 40; 2052 at 64; 2053 at 44–45. These
`
`statements show DENSO’s understanding, based on DENSO’s work with Mr.
`
`Levanon and 3DVU and the license agreement, that its products included
`
`proprietary 3DVU technology. The statements are verbal acts that are admissible
`
`to show the state of mind of DENSO. See F.R.E. 801(c); F.R.E. 801 Advisory
`
`Committee Note, 1972 Proposed Rule, Note to Subdivision (c); see also KW
`
`Plastics v. US. Can Co., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1298 (M.D. Ala. 2001) (“Evidence
`
`is admissible to show the declarant’s ‘then existing state of mind, emotion,
`
`sensation, or physical condition . . . .’” (citing F.R.E. 803(3)). Verbal acts “are not
`
`hearsay because they are not assertions and not adduced to prove the truth of the
`
`matter.” Mueller v. Abdnor, 972 F.2d 931, 937 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing 2 JOHN W.
`
`4
`
`
`
`STRONG ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, § 249 at 101 (4th ed. 1992); 6 JOHN H.
`
`WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, § 1770 at 259 (James H. Chadbourn rev. ed. 1976)).
`
`The Kenwood manuals display the Flyover Technologies, LLC Logo. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 2051 at 40; Ex. 2052 at 12–13, 37; Ex. 2053 at 1, 12–13, 26, 30, 45. The use
`
`of the FlyOver logo on Kenwood’s manuals is not hearsay. See United States v.
`
`Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 479–80 (8th Cir. 2010) (name and manufacturer inscription
`
`not hearsay)
`
`Microsoft’s completeness objection also fails. Mr. Levanon relies on
`
`graphics and English statements from the brochures. The relevant additional
`
`portions are translated, and the accuracy of translation is unchallenged.
`
`Petitioner’s objection to the partial translation is meritless. Partial translations of
`
`relevant portions of foreign language documents have been allowed by the
`
`P.T.A.B. before. IPR2014-00280, Paper 17 at 5–7 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2014)
`
`(waiving the requirements of 42.63(b) and granting inter partes review based on a
`
`partial translation). The relevant portions of the brochures are the sentences
`
`immediately adjacent to the Flyover logo on each brochure that state that the
`
`Kenwood products include Flyover technology, and these sentences have been
`
`translated. There is no dispute that the translations are accurate. Petitioner cites no
`
`law. Paper 42 at 6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`The Kenwood automobile navigation system brochures should not be
`
`excluded. They are not used for hearsay purposes, and Microsoft’s completeness
`
`objection is without merit.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 2021 (PRESS RELEASE DESCRIBING FROST &
`SULLIVAN AWARD) SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`The Board should not exclude Exhibit 2021. Bradium does not rely on the
`
`exhibit, a press release, for the truth of what it reports, but instead to show that the
`
`statement was made, and the timing of the statement made by Frost & Sullivan
`
`which describes an award given to 3DVU. Microsoft’s hearsay objection thus fails.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The press release, Exhibit 2021, documents the timing of
`
`the statement made about the award as it was released in 2008, which documents
`
`the 2007 award by Frost & Sullivan. Ex. 2021 at 1–3
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`III. THE PRESS RELEASES (EXHIBITS 2030, 2032, 2039, 2045–48, 2063)
`SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`The press releases included as Bradium exhibits 2030, 2032, 2045–48, and
`
`2063 should not be excluded. The exhibits are not relied upon for the truth of what
`
`6
`
`
`
`they assert, but instead again are used to show that the statements were made, and
`
`the timing of statements about the commercial products that include 3DVU
`
`technology, and about the industry’s praise for the 3DVU technology. Therefore,
`
`Microsoft’s hearsay objections fail and the exhibits should not be excluded.
`
`A. Exhibits 2030 and 2032 (Press Releases Concerning Kenwood
`System) Should Not Be Excluded
`
`The Board should not exclude Exhibits 2030 and 2032, which are press
`
`releases documenting the timing of the use of 3DVU technology in Kenwood
`
`(DENSO) automobile navigation systems. Bradium does not rely on these press
`
`releases for the truth of their contents, but instead to show that the statements were
`
`made, and the timing of these statements relating to the release of the Kenwood
`
`systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore,
`
`Microsoft’s hearsay objection fails.
`
`Exhibit 2039 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2039 is a 2006 press release entitled “Daewoo to Showcase 3DVU’s
`
`Visual Map Navigation Technology at the Busan International Motor Show,
`
`Korea.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Bradium does not rely on the press release for the
`
`truth of what it asserts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The press release is used to show that the statements were made, and the
`
`date of statements made about these activities. Because the exhibit is not relied
`
`upon for the truth of the matter it asserts, Microsoft’s objection fails. The exhibit
`
`should not be excluded.
`
`C. Exhibits 2045–2047 Should Not Be Excluded
`Exhibits 2045–2047 are press releases and articles regarding 3DVU’s
`
`Navi2Go application that were published in or about 2008.
`
`Exhibit 2045 is a January 8, 2009 CNET article by Jessica Dolcourt, entitled
`
`“3DVU Announces Way2Go 3D Mobile Mapping.” Exhibit 2046 is a December
`
`2008 release entitled “3DVU Releases the Ultimate Game-Changer in Mobile
`
`Navigation, Navi2Go Two-for-One.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2047 is a
`
`September 2008 press release entitled “3DVU Enhancing Over 80 Million Nokia
`
`Phones With Navi2Go, the Only 3D Virtual World Mobile Navigation.” The
`
`exhibits are not relied upon for the truth of their statements, but instead to show
`
`that the statements were made and the timing of the statements, relating to release
`
`of the 3DVU applications. Mr. Levanon independently confirmed that, for
`
`example, Exhibits 2046 and 2047 accurately reflect the timeline of events
`
`associated with 3DVU. Exhibit 1019 at 70:19–73:11. Because Exhibits 2045–
`
`2047 are not relied upon for the truth of what they state, Microsoft’s hearsay
`
`objection fails. The exhibits should not be excluded.
`
`8
`
`
`
`D. Exhibit 2048 (Directions Magazine Press Release Titled “3DVU’s
`Mobile Navigation Best Seller on Sprint’s Shop) Should Not Be
`Excluded
`
`Exhibit 2048 is a Directions Magazine press release, titled “3DVU’s Mobile
`
`Navigation Best Seller on Sprint’s Shop,” dated June 21, 2008. This exhibit is not
`
`relied upon for the truth of what it assets, but instead is used to show that the
`
`statement was made and the date of the statement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Levanon’s testimony is based on his personal knowledge as the CEO of the 3DVU
`
`companies, not his press releases. The Exhibit is relied on only to show what
`
`Directions Magazine said at a particular time. Therefore, Microsoft’s hearsay
`
`objection fails. The exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`Exhibit 2063 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`E.
`Exhibit 2063 is a September 2005 press release entitled “3DVU and
`
`Infoterra Signed a Memorandum of Understanding.” Bradium does not rely on the
`
`exhibit for the truth of what it asserts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` He confirmed this at
`
`
`
`deposition. Exhibit 1019 at 73:12–74:25. Further, Mr. Levanon confirmed at
`
`deposition that this document was authored, at least in part, by Infoterra. Id.
`
`The press release is used to show the date of a statement made regarding
`
`3DVU’s selection for Red Herring’s list. Because Bradium does not rely on
`
`Exhibit 2063 for the truth of what it asserts, Microsoft’s hearsay objection fails.
`
`The exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 2044 (TECHNODE ARTICLE) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXLUDED
`
`Exhibit 2044 is a Technode article by Sho Tabata, dated December 3, 2008.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2044 is offered to show the date during which
`
`statements were made regarding Navi2Go as a bestseller on several mobile
`
`operator marketplaces. See Ex. 2044 at 1;
`
`
`
`
`
`. Bradium does not rely
`
`on this article for the assertion that Navi2Go sold well, only that a particular author
`
`said it sold well.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, Microsoft’s hearsay objection fails. The exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`V. EXHIBITS 2035 AND 2036 (C.E. UNTERBERG TOWBIN REPORTS)
`SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibits 2035 and 2036 are valuation summaries regarding 3DVU and a
`
`Keyhole Deal Value Analysis that 3DVU prepared at Microsoft’s suggestion.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex. 2072 ¶ 73. Bradium does not rely on these valuation summaries for the truth
`
`of what they state, i.e., that the technology was worth X dollars at Y date, but
`
`instead as verbal acts to show what a reputable company, hired at Microsoft’s
`
`request, said the technology was worth. The documents further show the timing
`
`and occurrence of acquisition discussions between Microsoft and 3DVU in 2005,
`
`which are also confirmed by Mr. Levanon’s direct testimony. The documents are
`
`relied upon for the fact that someone evaluated the technology and stated their
`
`appraisal of the technology’s value. At deposition, Mr. Levanon further explained
`
`these exhibits:
`
`Q. Do you recall how much you paid C.E. Unterberg,
`Towbin to provide Exhibit 2035?
`
`MR. COULSON: Objection. Foundation.
`
`A. I do not recall the amount, but I remember that we
`were pretty upset that Microsoft require us to engage
`with bankers because it cost us money.
`
`MR. BERNSTEIN: Objection. Nonresponsive.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2036, do you recall how much 3DVU paid
`C.E. Unterberg, Towbin to prepare Exhibit 2036?
`
`A. No, I do not recall how much we paid, but again, as
`we said, we were very upset that we had to pay as a
`request of Microsoft to engage with a banker.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1019 at 59:20–60:3. As Mr. Levanon explained, the role of the exhibits is
`
`to show that the documents were prepared and used, at Microsoft’s request, in
`
`acquisition discussions with Microsoft. Exhibits 2035 and 2036.
`
`Because the valuation summaries are not used for the truth of what they state,
`
`Microsoft’s hearsay objections fail. The exhibits should not be excluded.
`
`VI. EXHIBIT 2049 (VC CAFE ARTICLE) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibit 2049 is a VCCafe Article by Eze Vidra, dated November 2008,
`
`entitled, “Navi2go: The Ultimate Killer Navigation Application?” Ex. 2049 at 1.
`
`The article is not cited for the truth of what it asserts, but instead Bradium relies on
`
`this article for the fact of the statement of the opinion of the publication and its
`
`author: “VC Cafe’s take: If they could only make it free by combining it with an
`
`in-GPS monetization platform – it would really be the killer navigation app.”
`
`Exhibit 2049 at 2 (emphasis added); Paper 17 at pages 60–61. Because Bradium
`
`does not rely on the article for the truth of the matter asserted, Microsoft’s
`
`objection fails. The exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`VII. EXHIBIT 2059 (MICROSOFT WEBSITE) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibit 2059 is a Microsoft website entitled “Bing Maps Tile System.”
`
`Ex. 2059 at 1. The exhibit is not hearsay. It is Microsoft’s own statement.
`
`12
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 801(d)(2) (Opposing Party’s Statement). Therefore, Microsoft’s hearsay
`
`objection fails. The exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`VIII. EXHIBITS 2016–2017 (MICROSOFT R&D SPENDING) SHOULD
`NOT BE EXCLUDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` These
`
`documents are not hearsay because they are based on Microsoft’s own reported
`
`data. F.R.E. 801(d)(2) (Opposing Party’s Statement). Therefore, Microsoft’s
`
`hearsay objection fails. The exhibits should not be excluded.
`
`IX. EXHIBIT 2018 (FROST & SULLIVAN WEBSITE) SHOULD NOT BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`Exhibit 2018 is a Frost & Sullivan website published in 2008 documenting a
`
`“Convergence in North American Automotive Industry” marked as a “Market
`
`Insights report,” summarized as “Convergence in North American Automotive
`
`Industry Fusion Google Earth, Microsoft and 3DVU push for 3D imagery with
`
`elevation • Transition already started in Japan and South Korea • BMW… mapping
`
`solutions in South Korea using the 3D engine supplied by 3DVU Nissan’s
`
`Telematics service Carwings to promote eco driving.” Bradium relies on this
`
`exhibit to show that Frost & Sullivan, an international consulting firm that
`
`concentrates on uncovering future technologies and mega trends, made a statement
`
`about 3DVU, listing it among Google and Microsoft, as companies that push for
`
`13
`
`
`
`3D imagery. Paper 17 at 57–58. Therefore, Exhibit 2018 is used as a verbal act
`
`(the fact that Frost & Sullivan issued this report), not for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted in the report summary. Microsoft’s hearsay objection therefore fails. The
`
`exhibit should not be excluded.
`
`X. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny Microsoft’s motion with respect to Patent Owner’s Exhibit Nos. 2016–18,
`
`2021, 2030, 2032, 2035–36, 2039, 2044–49, 2051–53, 2059, and 2063.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dated: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Chris J. Coulson
`Chris J. Coulson (Reg. No. 61,771)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`ccoulson@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Michael Zachary (pro hac vice)
`michaelzachary@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`Clifford Ulrich (Reg. No. 42,194)
`cliffordulrich@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 31,
`
`2017, the foregoing was served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner:
`
`Chun Ng (Reg. No. 36,878)
`Matthew Bernstein (pro hac vice)
`Patrick McKeever (Reg. No. 66,019)
`Vinay Sathe (Reg. No. 55,595)
`Evan S. Day (pro hac vice)
`PerkinsServiceBradiumIPR@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Chris J. Coulson
`Chris J. Coulson
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`ccoulson@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`