`
`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.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01261
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,113
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING REPLIES ....................................... 1
`THE REPLY EXHIBITS DIRECTLY REBUT PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE ............................................................................... 2
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., IPR2014-00579,
`Paper 45 at p. 29-30 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2015) .............................................. 2, 4-5, 7
`
`
`Rules and Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied because it
`
`fundamentally misapplies the law regarding replies. The very purpose of a
`
`petitioner’s reply is to respond to the arguments in a patent owner’s response. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). As Petitioners repeatedly explained in their Reply (Paper 34)
`
`and during the July 6, 2017 conference call with the Board, and as the Petitioners
`
`identified in their Responsive Listing of Support Showing Reply Arguments are
`
`Proper (Paper 42) (“Responsive Listing”), the disputed exhibits (i.e., those which
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude) and related arguments were included in the Reply
`
`to rebut Patent Owner’s Response. Specifically, the new exhibits demonstrate that
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in the Response regarding the state of the art in May
`
`2000 lack factual support and are simply inaccurate.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion now seeks to substantially modify the rule regarding
`
`the proper scope of replies to hold that anything that directly rebuts arguments in a
`
`response is nevertheless improper if it was not included in the Petition. That is
`
`simply not the law, and such an approach would effectively nullify the utility and
`
`purpose of a reply brief.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING REPLIES
`Patent Owner’s challenges to Exhibits 1057, 1058, and related portions of
`
`Exhibit 1065, (the “Reply Exhibits”) are based on the mere fact that they were
`
`submitted with the Reply and not the Petition. Such arguments are not a sufficient
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`basis for excluding these exhibits because Petitioners are permitted to submit
`
`additional evidence that is responsive to arguments raised in a patent owner
`
`response – “[t]he very nature of a reply is to rebut the patent owner’s response.”
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., IPR2014-00579,
`
`Paper 45 at p. 29-30 (PTAB Sept. 28, 2015) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). In fact,
`
`the Board has found that “[t]he need to rely on new evidence may not arise until a
`
`particular point has been raised in the patent owner response. Much depends on the
`
`specific arguments made in the patent owner response.” Id. “The mere fact that a
`
`petitioner submits rebuttal testimony that relies on new evidence not previously
`
`identified in the petition does not suffice to establish its impropriety.” Id.
`
`II. THE REPLY EXHIBITS DIRECTLY REBUT PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Motion to Exclude fail to address that the
`
`Reply Exhibits were submitted only to rebut new arguments in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response and not to change or supplement the two instituted Grounds. Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, and the accompanying declaration of its expert (Mr. Bates),
`
`relied on three arguments premised on unsupported factual assertions. Reply, 1-3.
`
`The first of these arguments was that a POSA understood in May 2000 that the
`
`only way to connect to the PSTN was through a PSTN edge switch and therefore a
`
`POSA would understand that Archer fails to disclose connecting a call processing
`
`system to the PSTN through a PSTN tandem switch. Reply, 1-2; see also
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Response, 38-46, 56-57 citing Exhibit 2022, ¶¶67-75, 90-91. In response to this
`
`first argument, Petitioner submitted Reply Exhibits 1057 and 1058 which show
`
`that a POSA did in fact know how to connect to the PSTN through a tandem
`
`switch—which directly rebuts the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert.
`
`The need for these Reply Exhibits arose only after Patent Owner filed its
`
`Response that contained the first argument misstating the state of the art in May
`
`2000. The Reply Exhibits are not necessary for Petitioners’ prima facie case;
`
`indeed, the Board instituted trial on both Grounds without this evidence and this
`
`evidence does not change those Grounds. Paper 19. Moreover, the Reply
`
`confirms that the Petition sets forth how both Grounds render the challenged
`
`claims obvious whether the Board adopts Patent Owner’s narrow claim
`
`constructions or broader constructions including those set forth by Petitioners.
`
`Reply, 4-8, 13-18, 28 (Petition citations omitted); see also generally Responsive
`
`Listing.
`
`This dispute is akin to that in Ford in which the Board denied patent owner’s
`
`motion to exclude and held it was proper for the petitioner “[to] rely on new
`
`evidence or different aspects of previously submitted evidence” in its Reply. Ford
`
`Motor Co., IPR2014-00579, Paper 45 at p. 29-30. In Ford, the patent owner
`
`“questioned the feasibility of the starter motor/battery connection taught by the
`
`Bumby references that Ford relied upon in its Petition” by claiming “that a
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`conventional starter motor ‘cannot be used’ and ‘is not possible’ with Bumby’s
`
`hybrid battery and submitted the testimony of its own declarant that ‘cost and
`
`technical complexity’ would not have precluded Bumby’s configuration.” Id.
`
`(citations omitted). The petitioner (Ford), “in turn, submitted the challenged
`
`testimony and exhibit in rebuttal to show that Bumby’s starter motor/battery
`
`connection would have been feasible, and in fact, was well-known and obvious to
`
`skilled artisans in the relevant time frame.” Id. The Board held this was an
`
`“appropriate use of rebuttal evidence” by Ford to satisfy its burden. Id. Ford had
`
`“merely elaborated on an initial position raised in its Petition and presented
`
`evidence in direct rebuttal to Paice’s Response.” Id.
`
`As in Ford, the Petitioners here rely on the Reply Exhibits to directly rebut
`
`Patent Owner’s Response and to correct its expert’s (Mr. Bates) factual errors. As
`
`set forth in the Petition, a POSA would understand that Archer discloses server
`
`processor 128 coupled to a PSTN tandem switch in PSTN 118 (136) via gateway
`
`126. Pet., 26-29, 33-35, 39-40, 43-44, 50-53; Exhibit 1002, ¶¶135-142, 157, 159-
`
`162, 173-175, 188-190, 212-213, 217-220, 224; Exhibit 2019, 267:19-268:4;
`
`271:2-273:12. In its Response, relying on its expert’s testimony, Patent Owner
`
`argued:
`
`Prior to the date of the invention of the Challenged Patent, a POSA
`would understand that any prior art disclosing an edge device external
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`to the PSTN must access the PSTN through an edge switch first, not a
`tandem switch. Response, 38 citing Exhibit 2022, ¶67.
`It was only after Patent Owner made this inaccurate argument that the need
`
`arose for Petitioners to rebut Mr. Bates’s underlying opinion regarding the state of
`
`the art, thus making Petitioner’s submission of Reply Exhibits 1057 and 1058 an
`
`“appropriate use of rebuttal evidence.” Ford, Paper 45 at p. 29-30. As explained
`
`by Dr. LaPorta in his rebuttal declaration (Exhibit 1065), contrary to Mr. Bates’s
`
`opinion in his declaration in support of the Response, interconnecting PSTN and IP
`
`networks at the tandem level was well known and posed no technical challenges
`
`over interconnecting such networks at a different switch such as a PSTN end office
`
`switch. Reply, 12-13. Thus, Reply Exhibit 1065 discussing Reply Exhibits 1057
`
`and 1058 is also an appropriate use of rebuttal evidence for the same reasoning as
`
`the underlying exhibits.
`
`The Reply further properly identified that Mr. Bates cited no factual support
`
`for this opinion, and that, during his deposition, he acknowledged that he did not
`
`actively research the state of the art with respect to converging IP and PSTN
`
`networks. Reply, 11-12; Exhibit 1059, 192:11-14. The Reply also properly
`
`identified that Mr. Bates’s allegedly supporting citations for this opinion in the
`
`testimony of Petitioners’ expert, and the experts of other Petitioners in different
`
`IPRs, were taken out of context. Reply, 11-12. Specifically, the Reply identified
`
`that both Dr. La Porta (Petitioners’ expert) and Mr. Willis (expert in other IPRs)
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`testified that Mr. Bates’s opinion is inaccurate with respect to converging PSTN
`
`and IP networks. Id., 12 citing Exhibit 2019, 350:4-24; Exhibit 1061, 80:9-20.
`
`Furthermore, the Reply identified that, when presented with this conflicting
`
`testimony, Mr. Bates acknowledged that it was well known to interconnect an IP
`
`carrier network and the PSTN at a tandem switch. Reply, 12 citing Exhibit 1059,
`
`205:15-206:16 (testifying that “the network as it existed” “prior to May 4, 2000”
`
`included a “connecting node between an IP carrier [network] and the PSTN . . . at a
`
`higher switch level, like a tandem switch” and that this “higher level switch, like a
`
`tandem switch” would communicate with “PCM” or “TDM” on “the PSTN side.”),
`
`211:21-213:14, 250:23-251:17.
`
`Because the Reply Exhibits expose Patent Owner’s misrepresentations to the
`
`Board and discredit Mr. Bates’s testimony, Patent Owner now seeks their
`
`exclusion by arguing that these exhibits should have been submitted with the
`
`Petition. But there was no reason for the Reply Exhibits to have been submitted
`
`with the Petition when (1) the Grounds indisputably disclose a system in which a
`
`device external to the PSTN sent and received call requests via the PSTN through a
`
`controller on an IP network connected to a PSTN tandem switch via a gateway,
`
`and (2) the prosecution history of the challenged patents clearly show the breadth
`
`of the newly introduced claim term “switching facility.” Both the Petition and the
`
`Reply provide numerous citations to these teachings in Archer and Archer in view
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`of Chang. See, e.g., Pet., 26-29, 33-35, 39-40, 43-44, 50-53; Reply, 4-8, 13-15, 17-
`
`18. This issue is not even reasonably in dispute, but Mr. Bates nevertheless offered
`
`opinions to the contrary that required rebuttal. And it is Patent Owner, not
`
`Petitioners, who presented new, narrower claim constructions in its Response that
`
`are clearly contradictory from the broad definitions it previously ascribed to such
`
`claim terms during the prosecution history of the challenged patents. The fact that
`
`the Reply Exhibits may further confirm the veracity of the original evidence
`
`submitted with the Petition, or the prima facie case, does not make them any less
`
`admissible. Ford specifically addressed this issue and held that such evidence is
`
`admissible. IPR2014-00579, Paper 45, at 29-30.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s
`
`request to exclude the Reply Exhibits.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2017
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`ATTN: Patrick McPherson
`505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-5214
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`/s/ Patrick D. McPherson
`Patrick D. McPherson
`Reg. No. 46,255
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, the undersigned certifies that on August 28, 2017, a
`
`complete and entire electronic copy of Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude was served electronically via email on the following:
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`brent@nelbum.com
`PAL-IPR@nelbum.com
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`Victor Siber
`vsiber@siberlaw.com
`
`Hanna Madbak
`hmadbak@siberlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM2\8128227.3
`
`1
`
`By: /s/ Christopher J. Tyson
`
`Christopher J. Tyson
`
`Reg. No. 63,850
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`