`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01261
`Patent Number: 8,457,113 B2
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`Petitioners’ opposition to Patent Owner’s motion to exclude mischaracterizes
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`the record. Lewis and LaPier, which Petitioners raised for the first time in reply,
`
`raise new arguments that Petitioners failed to make in their petition and that the
`
`Board did not consider when instituting review. Lewis and LaPier are therefore
`
`irrelevant to the instituted grounds and should be excluded.
`
`I.
`
`Lewis and LaPier Should be Excluded
`
`As an initial matter, the Board should disregard Petitioners’ arguments
`
`regarding Lewis and LaPier because Petitioners’ opposition impermissibly argues
`
`the merits of the case. Instead of merely stating why it believes that Lewis and
`
`LaPier are relevant to the instituted grounds, Petitioners’ opposition includes
`
`substantial argument regarding the merits of the case. See Paper No. 52 at 5-7.
`
`Motions to exclude (and their corresponding oppositions) are not the proper place
`
`for substantive arguments. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00002, Paper No. 66 at 62 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) (“While a motion to
`
`exclude may raise issues related to admissibility of evidence, it is not an opportunity
`
`to file a sur-reply . . . .”). The Board should therefore ignore Petitioners’ arguments.
`
`Moreover, Lewis and LaPier are not relevant to the issues raised in the petition
`
`and the grounds instituted by the Board. Petitioners argue that their petition explains
`
`that “a POSA would understand that Archer discloses server processor 128 coupled
`
`to a PSTN tandem switch in PSTN 118 (136) via gateway 126.” Paper No. 52 at 4.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`Petitioners further argue that Lewis and LaPier were necessary to rebut Mr. Bates’s
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`opinion that “[p]rior to the date of the invention . . . a POSA would understand that
`
`any prior art disclosing an edge device external to the PSTN must access the PSTN
`
`through an edge switch first, not a tandem switch.” Paper No. 52 at 5-6 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Petitioners claim that the Reply Exhibits demonstrate what a POSA would
`
`have understood in May 2000. See id. at 2-3. But there is no evidence that Lewis
`
`and LaPier were even known to the public at that time and could have been
`
`considered by a POSA or anyone else not employed by the assignees. Lewis claims
`
`a priority date of November 20, 1998, and LaPier claims a priority date of December
`
`28, 1998. Assuming both of these patents (or related applications) were published
`
`18 months after their respective priority dates, they would have been published after
`
`the priority date of the ’113 Patent. Given the testimony that Petitioners would like
`
`to rebut with the Reply Exhibits concerns Mr. Bates testifying about the knowledge
`
`of a POSA as of the ’113 Patent’s priority date, these Exhibits are wholly deficient
`
`because a POSA would not have known about these patents at that time.1
`
`
`1 Patent Owner understands that while the Reply Exhibits may be prior art to
`
`the ’113 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102, that is not the proper focus. Petitioners
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`Although a complete discussion of the technical aspects of Lewis and LaPier
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`is outside the scope of this reply, Patent Owner disputes that Lewis and LaPier show
`
`an edge device external to the PSTN that accesses the PSTN directly through a
`
`tandem switch. Petitioners’ spin of Lewis and LaPier simply emphasizes the
`
`deficiencies of the art cited in the original petition. Indeed, Archer, Petitioners’
`
`primary reference, does not even mention tandem switches. It is these deficiencies
`
`that Petitioners seek to cure with Lewis and LaPier, not any statements by Mr. Bates,
`
`which go to the knowledge of a POSA at a point in time before Lewis and LaPier
`
`were publicly available.
`
`In summary, instead of merely using the new exhibits to elaborate on their
`
`positions raised in the petition, as the Board held was proper in Ford Motor Co. v.
`
`Paice LLC, Petitioners are using Lewis and LaPier to impermissibly add new
`
`arguments that they did not make in their petition.2 IPR2014-00579, Paper No. 45
`
`
`attempt to use these Exhibits to show what the knowledge of a POSA would have
`
`been at the time the ’113 Patent was filed, and for a POSA to have been informed
`
`by these Exhibits, they would need to have been publicly available at that time.
`
`2 Petitioners’ argument is also belied by its argument in reply that Archer
`
`discloses connecting to the PSTN through a tandem switch. Paper No. 34 at 7-8. If
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`at 30 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2015) (“In its reply, Ford merely elaborated on an initial
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`position raised in its Petition and presented evidence in direct rebuttal to Paice’s
`
`Response.”). The Board should therefore exclude Lewis and LaPier.
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`Registration No. 48,476
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of September 2017, a copy of Patent
`
`Owner FOCAL IP, LLC’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence Under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 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
`Facsimile: (214) 661-4678
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah J. Guske
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, #3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`Petitioners believe this is true, it is unclear why they also rely on Lewis and LaPier
`
`unless Petitioners use them as the basis for additional grounds of unpatentability.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`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
`Kansas City, MO 64106
`Tel: 816-292-8150
`Fax: 816-474-3216
`sfbbaction@spencerfane.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01261
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`