`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`FACEBOOK INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`Issue Date: April 8, 2014
`Title: REAL TIME COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`Case No. IPR2016-011591
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`
`1 Case No. IPR2017-00659 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s scheduling order2 (Paper No. 8), Patent Owner
`
`Windy City Innovations LLC respectfully submits this reply in support of its
`
`motion to exclude evidence (“Motion”), responsive to Petitioner’s opposition to the
`
`same.
`
`II.
`
` THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER
`
`Petitioner argues incorrectly that this Motion to exclude evidence is
`
`improper. The Board should reject these arguments for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner mischaracterizes Patent Owner’s challenge as one solely
`
`directed to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). While the narrowly-tailored portions should be
`
`excluded for violating 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), Patent Owner’s arguments are further
`
`grounded properly in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Particularly, Patent Owner
`
`alleges correctly that certain narrowly-tailored portions of the record should be
`
`deemed inadmissible as irrelevant (FRE 401 and 402) or otherwise prejudicial,
`
`confusing, and/or misleading (FRE 403). As explained in the Motion, those
`
`portions resulting in new arguments should be excluded for at least being: (a)
`
`irrelevant to the authorized grounds for trial, (b) unfairly prejudicial as concealing
`
`grounds and perfecting arguments with previously-unapplied references, (c)
`
`
`2 Due Date 4 remains unaffected by the filing of the parties’ scheduling stipulations and the Board’s revised
`scheduling order in this case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`confusing to the issues instituted by the Board, and (d) misleading with respect to
`
`the content and scope of the prior art.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s cases are inapposite because the motions in those
`
`proceedings relied solely on scope without any discussion regarding admissibility
`
`under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan,
`
`Inc., No. IPR2016-00151, Paper 39 at 1 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016); Facebook, Inc.
`
`et. al v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, No. IPR2013-00478, Paper 47 at 1-2
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014). To the extent that any order cited by Petitioner can be
`
`reasonably construed to mean that the Board will automatically deny properly-
`
`preserved requests to exclude evidence based on the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`such practice would fall squarely in conflict with controlling case law.
`
`Third, the rules provide that “[a] motion to exclude evidence must be filed to
`
`preserve any objection” and that, upon institution, “any objection must be filed
`
`within five business days of service of evidence.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(c),
`
`42.64(b)(1). Patent Owner complied with the rules and timely filed its objections,
`
`supporting each and every request to exclude in this Motion. Paper 33.
`
`Petitioner’s argument, if accepted, would force patent owners to noncompliance
`
`with the Board’s rules.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner fails to point to any binding or precedential case law for
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`self-serving reasons. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged the
`
`requirements of the Board to apply rules and practice procedures in accordance
`
`with a patent owner’s due process rights. The Federal Circuit has held that, during
`
`inter partes review, a patent owner “is undoubtedly entitled to notice and a fair
`
`opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805
`
`F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Belden Court endorsed the practice that a
`
`Petitioner’s “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition or patent owner response” and that “if the petitioner submits a new
`
`expert declaration with its Reply, the patent owner can respond in multiple ways.”
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080-1081 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Particularly, the Patent Owner “can move to exclude the declaration” and “can
`
`dispute the substance of the declaration at oral hearing before the Board.” Id.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the Federal Circuit explained that “a party may
`
`move to exclude evidence, whether as improper under the response-only
`
`regulation, under the Trial Practice Guide's advice, or on other grounds. §
`
`42.64(c).” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1081. Citing to Belden, the Board has
`
`endorsed this very type of motion and ruled against a party for its failure to move
`
`to exclude new arguments presented through expert testimony. Ceramtec GMBH
`
`v. Ceramedic, LLC, No. IPR2015-00398, Paper 36 at 12 (P.T.A.B. July, 1, 2016)
`
`[“Patent Owner also did not file a motion to exclude portions of Petitioner’s expert
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony…see also Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (identifying options for Patent Owner faced with new evidence in Reply).”].
`
`“Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither
`
`this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts
`
`of that brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board noted, ‘it will
`
`not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.’” Intelligent Bio-
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Accordingly, this motion is proper and should not be denied without consideration.
`
`III. EX. 1021, SECOND DECLARATION OF TAL LAVIAN, PH.D.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s permissive take on the rules regarding petitioner
`
`replies, “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”
`
`(Emphasis added.) 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Regarding Exhibit 1021, ¶ 54 at lines 1–17, including citations to Roseman
`
`at 12:1-5 and 12:9-10 and discussion of Windows and Macintosh client software
`
`alternatives, Petitioner’s bare “natural explanation” response reaffirms Patent
`
`Owner’s bases for its request to exclude this portion for the reasons presented in
`
`the Motion. Petitioner’s response lacks substance and fails to adequately explain
`
`how the particular portion is responsive to Dr. Carbonell’s arguments or based on a
`
`position authorized for trial.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
` Regarding Exhibit 1021, ¶ 74 at lines 1–6 with citations to Roseman at
`
`11:10-17 and discussion of connections between participator computers,
`
`Petitioner’s response reaffirms Patent Owner’s bases for its request to exclude this
`
`portion for the reasons presented in the Motion. Petitioner’s response lacks
`
`substance and fails to adequately explain how the particular portion is responsive
`
`to Dr. Carbonell’s arguments or based on a position authorized for trial.
`
`Regarding Exhibit 1021, ¶ 75 at lines 4–10, Petitioner’s response reaffirms
`
`Patent Owner’s bases for its request to exclude this portion for the reasons
`
`presented in the Motion. Petitioner’s response lacks substance and fails to
`
`adequately explain how the particular portion is responsive to Dr. Carbonell’s
`
`arguments or based on a position authorized for trial.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In sum, none of Petitioner’s responses indicate any responsiveness to Dr.
`
`Carbonell’s arguments or any support to relate back the new arguments to the
`
`authorized grounds for trial. Because the above-identified portions are irrelevant,
`
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or misleading, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests exclusion of at least ¶ 54 at lines 1–17 and ¶ 74 at lines 1–6 of the reply
`
`declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian (Ex. 1021) from the evidentiary record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III/
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01159
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,657
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A copy of PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE has been served on Petitioner at the correspondence
`
`of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`By Email:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe (Reg. No. 40,673)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`By Email:
`
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`Dated August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By Email:
`
`Phillip E. Morton (Reg. No. 57,835)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`
`By Email:
`
`Daniel J. Knauss (Reg. No. 56,393)
`dknauss@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`/Vincent J. Rubino, III/
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Reg. No. 68,594)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-209-4800
`Fax: 212-209-4801
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`