`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`——————————
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————————
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`——————————
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner Was Served with Exhibit 1037 in a Related Litigation
`and Cannot Deny Exhibit 1037 Is Authentic. ...................................... 1
`
`Exhibit 1037 Is Admissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) Because
`Its Authenticity Is Apparent on Its Face. ............................................. 2
`
`Additional Evidence Proves the Authenticity of Exhibit 1037 ........... 4
`
`The Board Should Disregard Patent Owner’s Hearsay Objection
`Because TSMC Did Not Offer Exhibit 1037 to Prove the Truth of
`Any Statements in that Exhibit. ........................................................... 6
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01249
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Link v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 788 F.2d 918, 927 (3rd Cir. 1986) ............... 3
`
`McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 927 (3d Cir. 1985) ................... 2
`
`United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001) ....................................... 2
`
`United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1026-1027 (1st Cir. 1987) ...................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 1004(c) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) ................................................................................. 2, 3, 5, 6
`
`Patent Rule 3-3 Invalidity Contentions ..................................................................3, 4
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner denies the authenticity of a copy of the invalidity contentions
`
`it received in litigation, Exhibit 1037, even though Patent Owner refused to explain
`
`why this exhibit is different from the one it received. See Ex. 1040. Patent Owner
`
`did not even submit its own copy of the invalidity contentions to identify any
`
`differences. Exhibit 1037 is authentic on its face, and the other evidence TSMC
`
`submitted confirms its authenticity.
`
`The Board should also reject Patent Owner’s hearsay objection because
`
`TSMC did not submit Exhibit 1037 to prove the truth of the contents of the
`
`document, but rather to show Patent Owner was aware of certain information it
`
`failed to bring to the Board’s attention when filing its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`the Claims. See Paper 20.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner Was Served with Exhibit 1037 in a Related
`Litigation and Cannot Deny Exhibit 1037 Is Authentic.
`
`Exhibit 1037 is a document Patent Owner was served with during a related
`
`litigation it brought in the Eastern District of Texas. See Ex. 1039A. Patent Owner
`
`can determine whether the document is the same as the copy it received rather than
`
`burden the Board with this unnecessary exercise. On June 2, 2017, TSMC asked
`
`Patent Owner to do so or withdraw its objection for lack of authenticity. Ex. 1040.
`
`Patent Owner refused, but never identified any reason to justify its authenticity
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`objection to Exhibit 1037. Id. Its motion to exclude still does not justify its
`
`objection to authenticity
`
`TSMC asks the Board to presume Exhibit 1037 is authentic unless Patent
`
`Owner can identify a specific reason why it is not (which it cannot do). Cf. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 1004(c).
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1037 Is Admissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) Because
`Its Authenticity Is Apparent on Its Face.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) requires parties to provide “evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims,” a low threshold.
`
`McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 927 (3d Cir. 1985) (“The
`
`burden of proof for authentication is slight”). “If in the court’s judgment it seems
`
`reasonably probable that the evidence is what it purports to be, the command of
`
`Rule 901(a) is satisfied.” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`Under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4), the requirements for proving authenticity are
`
`met if the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive
`
`characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances,” indicate the
`
`document is what it purports to be. The evidence may come from the documents
`
`themselves, including the “official appearance of the documents.” Link v.
`
`Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 788 F.2d 918, 927 (3d Cir. 1986) (internal
`
`quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`Exhibit 1037 is a copy of invalidity contentions served on Patent Owner in a
`
`district-court litigation involving the ’324 patent. On the first page of Exhibit 1037,
`
`the caption provides the case number, information about the district court, and the
`
`parties involved, including an identification of Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP
`
`Bridge 1 as the plaintiff. Ex. 1037, 1.
`
`The caption also identifies the party that served the document on Patent
`
`Owner and a title “PATENT RULE 3-3 INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS” clearly
`
`identifying the character of the document. Id. The exhibit was signed by counsel
`
`for defendants in the district-court litigation (id., 57-58), and includes a Certificate
`
`of Service certifying that a true and correct copy of the document was served on
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel on June 20, 2016. Id., 59. Consistent with Patent Rule 3-3
`
`Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit 1037 identifies relevant prior art (id., 5-23) and
`
`specific grounds of invalidity (id., 23-50), and contains invalidity claim charts
`
`identifying claim elements in prior-art references (id., 60-229). Taken as a whole,
`
`the appearance, contents, substance, and other distinctive characteristics of Exhibit
`
`1037 by itself meets the low burden of establishing the authenticity of this exhibit
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). The exhibit’s appearance supports the document’s
`
`authenticity.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`C. Additional Evidence Proves the Authenticity of Exhibit 1037
`Exhibit 1039 is a declaration from Mr. Thomas E. Gorman, Esq. stating
`
`defendants’ counsel in the related litigation “provided me with a copy of their as-
`
`served Invalidity Contentions, which TSMC filed as Exhibit 1037 in both inter
`
`partes review proceedings.” Ex. 1039, ¶ 3. Mr. Gorman states, “TSMC’s Exhibit
`
`1037 is a true and correct copy of the Defendants’ Patent Rule 3-3 Invalidity
`
`Contentions and their attached Appendices B-1 to B-15, as received from
`
`defendants’ counsel in the above-identified litigation.” Id., ¶ 4.
`
`Patent Owner criticizes Mr. Gorman as not representing a party in the case,
`
`but he represented TSMC, who was not a party to the litigation and was not served
`
`with the document. Mr. Gorman can, nevertheless, testify he received the
`
`document from a party to the case, attesting to its authenticity.
`
`Exhibit 1039A to Mr. Gorman’s declaration is a printout of the PACER
`
`docket from the related district-court litigation, downloaded May 31, 2017, which
`
`includes a case caption identifying the case number, plaintiff, and defendants in the
`
`case caption on the first page of Exhibit 1037. Ex. 1039A, 1. Exhibit 1039A also
`
`identifies Patent Owner’s counsel as Gillam & Smith LLP and Ropes & Gray, the
`
`counsel in the Certificate of Service in Exhibit 1037.
`
`Exhibit 1039B is a copy of the local patent rules in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. Patent Rule 3-3 requires a party opposing a claim of patent infringement
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`serve “Invalidity Contentions” containing the “identity of each item of prior art,”
`
`“[w]hether each item of prior art anticipates each asserted claim or renders it
`
`obvious,” and “[a] chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior
`
`art each element of each asserted claim is found.” Ex. 1039B, 7-8. Consistent with
`
`this rule, Exhibit 1037 contains the identity of prior-art references (Ex. 1037, 5-
`
`23), grounds of invalidity (id., 23-50), and charts identifying where the prior-art
`
`references disclose each element of the ’324 patent claims (id., 60-229). The title
`
`of Exhibit 1037 also directly references this Patent Rule 3-3.
`
`Exhibit 1039C is a copy of the Docket Control Order in the related district-
`
`court litigation showing the proposed date for compliance with Patent Rule 3-3 as
`
`June 20, 2016. Ex. 1039C, at 4. This date is consistent with the date of service
`
`identified in the Notice of Compliance (Ex. 1039D), June 20, 2016, i.e., the same
`
`date identified in the Certificate of Service in Exhibit 1037. Ex. 1039D, 1. These
`
`supplemental exhibits further evidence the authenticity of Exhibit 1037 in
`
`compliance with Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).
`
`Patent Owner ignores the distinctive characteristics of the invalidity
`
`contentions and the circumstances surrounding this exhibit that demonstrate its
`
`authenticity. Instead, Patent Owner offers some type of “fairness” justification,
`
`alleging “Petitioner raised substantially the same objection against Patent Owner’s
`
`Exhibits 1045 and 1046.” Mot. at 3. The Board should disregard this argument that
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`no statute or case recognizes. It is ill-taken as well because TSMC, unlike Patent
`
`Owner, could not confirm the authenticity of Exhibits 1045 and 1046 since TSMC
`
`was not party to the litigation. Moreover, TSMC did not move to exclude Patent
`
`Owner’s Exhibits 1045 and 1046 on the basis of authenticity.
`
`Exhibit 1037, in consideration of Exhibits 1039 and 1039A-F, meets the
`
`authentication requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).
`
`D. The Board Should Disregard Patent Owner’s Hearsay Objection
`Because TSMC Did Not Offer Exhibit 1037 to Prove the Truth of
`Any Statements in that Exhibit.
`
`Hearsay is an out-of-court statement “offer[ed] in evidence to prove the truth
`
`of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). Statements
`
`offered to show knowledge are not hearsay. See, e.g., United States v. Figueroa,
`
`818 F.2d 1020, 1026-1027 (1st Cir. 1987) (statement offered to show knowledge of
`
`a party, rather than accuracy of the statement, is not hearsay).
`
`TSMC does not rely on Exhibit 1037 to prove the truth of any matter
`
`asserted in the exhibit. Instead, TSMC offers Exhibit 1037 to show Patent Owner
`
`knew of certain prior art and the element-by-element mappings of that prior art to
`
`claims in the ’324 patent. The existence of these invalidity claim charts in Exhibit
`
`1037 establishes Patent Owner’s state of mind regarding the materiality of these
`
`prior-art references. Exhibit 1037 is properly admissible as a non-hearsay
`
`document.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`TSMC asks the Board to deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because
`
`Exhibit 1037, which Patent Owner was served a copy in a related litigation, is
`
`unquestionably authentic, and it is not subject to a hearsay objection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: July 26, 2017
`
`
` By: / E. Robert Yoches /
`E. Robert Yoches, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 30,120
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-001249
`Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served on July 26, 2017, via electronic mail directed
`
`to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at:
`
`Michael J. Fink (Reg. No. 31,827)
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Neil F. Greenblum (Reg. No. 28,394)
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`
`Arnold Turk (Reg. No. 33,094)
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`Dated: July 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`