`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
`WIDEOPENWEST FINANCE, LLC
`KNOLOGY OF FLORIDA, INC.
`BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent Number: 8,155,298
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`Patent Owner Focal IP, LLC respectfully submits this opposition to
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude filed on August 21, 2017.
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBIT 2011 SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.
`
`Petitioners argue that Exhibit 2011 should be excluded under Rules 402 and
`
`403 because Patent Owner does not rely on it in Patent Owner’s response. Paper
`
`No. 48 at 1-2. Exhibit 2011 was introduced as an exhibit at the deposition of Dr. La
`
`Porta, Petitioners’ expert. Ex. 2020 at 214:23-215:10. Dr. La Porta’s deposition
`
`transcript was filed as an exhibit in full. Exs. 2019-2020. Exhibit 2011, as an exhibit
`
`at that deposition, was accordingly also filed.
`
`Exhibit 2011 is an expert declaration from Dr. Eric Burger, Petitioners’ expert
`
`in the related district court proceeding, where Dr. Burger expresses his opinions on
`
`how the claims at issue—including the claims of the challenged patent—should be
`
`construed. See Ex. 2011, passim. The positions regarding claim construction that
`
`Petitioners and its expert have taken in parallel proceedings are relevant and non-
`
`prejudicial to Petitioners. For at least these reasons, Exhibit 2011 should not be
`
`excluded under Rules 402 or 403.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`II. EXHIBITS 2021, 2024, 2025, 2027-2030, AND 2065 SHOULD NOT BE
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`EXCLUDED.
`
`Petitioners argue that Exhibits 2021, 2024, 2025, and 2027-20301 should be
`
`excluded under Rules 106, 403, and 1006 because (1) they are incomplete transcripts
`
`and submissions of witnesses and entities from other cases and (2) Patent Owner’s
`
`reference to or reliance on these exhibits is out of context. Paper No. 48 at 2-4.
`
`None of these rules support exclusion of these exhibits.
`
`Rule 106 does not provide a basis for excluding Exhibits 2021, 2024, 2025,
`
`and 2027-2030. Rule 106 states: “If a party introduces all or part of a writing or
`
`recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of
`
`any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought
`
`to be considered at the same time.” Fed. R. Evid. 106. Thus, at most, Rule 106
`
`would allow Petitioners to seek the admission of other portions of documents they
`
`contend are incomplete. Indeed Petitioners have already introduced the full
`
`transcript of Mr. Willis’s deposition and relied on a portion of it in their reply. See
`
`Ex. 1161 (Willis deposition transcript); Paper No. 35 at 11. But they have chosen
`
`not to introduce other portions of the exhibits they now challenge, either in their
`
`
`1 Petitioners also argue that Exhibit 2065 should be excluded. There is no
`
`Exhibit 2065 in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`reply or here. Exhibits 2021, 2024, 2025, and 2027-2030 therefore should not be
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`excluded under Rule 106.
`
`Rule 1006 also does not provide a basis for excluding Exhibits 2021, 2024,
`
`2025, and 2027-2030. Rule 1006 merely allows a party to “use a summary, chart,
`
`or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or
`
`photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court,” and requires the party
`
`to make the originals available for examination or copying and, if ordered by the
`
`court, to produce the originals in court. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. But Exhibits 2021,
`
`2024, 2025, and 2027-2030 are not summaries, charts, or calculations, but excerpts
`
`of petitions, declarations, and deposition transcripts. Rule 1006 therefore does not
`
`apply.
`
`Finally, Exhibits 2021, 2024, 2025, and 2027-2030 should not be excluded
`
`under Rule 403. Notably, Petitioners have not argued that these exhibits are
`
`irrelevant, but only that they confuse the issues, waste time, and are prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners. Paper No. 48 at 3-4. According to Petitioners, Patent Owner relies on
`
`these exhibits out of context of the rest of the testimony and the documents. Id. For
`
`example, Petitioners argue that “none of these excerpts involved testimony
`
`regarding interconnecting two different types of networks (such as an IP network
`
`and a circuit switched network) like the prior art of record in this proceeding.” Id.
`
`at 4. This is an argument about the weight to be given to the evidence, not about the
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`admissibility of the evidence. The proper time for such arguments was in
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ reply. These exhibits are used in a non-confusing manner to illustrate
`
`the state of the art and the opinions of other experts, which Patent Owner and its
`
`expert rely upon to support their analysis. The Board should not exclude Exhibits
`
`2021, 2024, 2025, and 2027-2030 under Rule 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 28th day of August 2017, a copy of Patent Owner
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC’s Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Evidence has been
`
`served in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 953-6678
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`Facsimile: (214) 661-4678
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah J. Guske
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, #3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 291-6205
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6305
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`May Eaton
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7520
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7620
`may.eaton@bakerbotts.com
`
`Patrick McPherson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-5214
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-7851
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Kyle Lynn Elliott
`Spencer Fane LLP
`1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01259
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`Tel: 816-292-8150
`Fax: 816-474-3216
`sfbbaction@spencerfane.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 49
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`