`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, Cisco Systems Inc., (“Petitioner”) hereby
`
`opposes TQ Delta, LLC’s (“Patent Owner”) Motion to Exclude (Paper 25 “Mot.
`
`Excl.”) Exhibit 1012. The Board should deny TQ Delta’s Motion to Exclude in its
`
`entirety for the reasons that follow.
`
`I.
`
`The Board Should Not Exclude Exhibit 1012 under Fed. R. Evid. 402
`
`TQ Delta’s arguments pertaining to the alleged inadmissibility of Exhibit
`
`1012 (Declaration of Dr. Kiaei) as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402 are
`
`unavailing.
`
`As movant, TQ Delta has the burden of showing that an exhibit is not
`
`admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Rule 401
`
`dictates that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
`
`probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Both the
`
`Federal Circuit and the Board have recognized that there is a “low threshold for
`
`relevancy.” OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1407 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997); Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00025, Paper
`
`45 at 44 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2015).
`
`a. Paragraphs 1-3, 8-16, and 25 of Exhibit 1012 are relevant.
`TQ Delta argues that Paragraphs 1-3, 8-16, and 25 of Exhibit 1012 are not
`
`relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402 because “Petitioner’s Reply for this proceeding
`
`does not cite to those paragraphs.” Mot. Excl. at 3. This argument misses the
`
`2
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`point. The evidence in Paragraphs 1-3 and 15-16 of Exhibit 1012 establishes that
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s testimony is responsive to certain assertions made by Dr. Chrissan in
`
`his Declaration, thus providing context for his testimony. The evidence at
`
`Paragraph 25 of Exhibit 1012 establishes that Dr. Kiaei submitted his testimony
`
`under oath. Accordingly, the evidence in Paragraphs 1-3, 15-16, and 25 is relevant
`
`for establishing the context of Dr. Kiaei’s testimony and for assessing the
`
`credibility of his testimony.
`
`Moreover, although the testimony at Paragraphs 8-13 more directly pertains
`
`to related IPR2016-01760, it should not be excluded because “there is a strong
`
`public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding
`
`available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014). Where the Board
`
`does not need to rely on challenged testimony, the motion to exclude is dismissed
`
`as moot. See, e.g., CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Sols., Inc., IPR2015-00219, Paper
`
`48 at 12 (PTAB May 19, 2016).
`
`Therefore, Paragraphs 1-3, 8-16, and 25 of Exhibit 1012 should not be
`
`excluded.
`
`
`
`b. TQ Delta’s arguments regarding Paragraphs 4-7, 17-21, and 23-
`24 of Exhibit 1012 do not address their admissibility under the
`rules of evidence.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01466
`TQ Delta’s arguments that Paragraphs 4-7, 17-21, and 23-24 of Exhibit 1012
`
`“constitute new evidence,” fail to address the admissibility of the evidence under
`
`FRE 402. Mot. Excl. at 3-9. TQ Delta’s principle argument is that the evidence
`
`was not introduced with the petition, ignoring the fact that “[t]he purpose of the
`
`trial in an inter parties review proceeding is to give the parties an opportunity to
`
`build a record by introducing evidence.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. v. Biomarin
`
`Pharm., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Therefore, because TQ Delta’s arguments do not explain how or why the
`
`“newness” of the evidence allegedly relates to its relevancy, TQ Delta has failed to
`
`meet its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The exhibits should not be excluded.
`
`c. Paragraphs 4-7, 17-21, and 23-24 of Exhibit 1012 are relevant.
`Petitioner’s evidence in Paragraphs is 4-7, 17-21, and 23-24 is relevant to
`
`arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response (Paper 11, “Response”). The
`
`evidence’s relevancy to specific issues and arguments is identified below.
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s testimony in Exhibit 1012 at Paragraphs 4-7 is relevant to TQ
`
`Delta’s newly proposed constructions of the terms “synchronization signal” and
`
`“parameter(s) associated with the full power mode operation.” Response at 17-22.
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s testimony at Paragraphs 17-18 in Exhibit 1012 is relevant to
`
`arguments raised by TQ Delta regarding prior art synchronization signals. This
`
`testimony evidences what persons of ordinary skill in the art understood regarding
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`these signals. Response at 17-18, 38-45.
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s testimony at Paragraphs 19-21 in Exhibit 1012 is relevant to
`
`arguments raised by TQ Delta regarding activating circuitry in Bowie during low
`
`power mode. This testimony evidences what persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`understood at the time. Response at 52-54.
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s testimony at Paragraphs 23 and 24 in Exhibit 1012 is relevant to
`
`TQ Delta’s argument regarding the compatibility of the prior art. This testimony
`
`evidences what persons of ordinary skill in the art understood at the time.
`
`Response at 55-57.
`
`In sum, the evidence in Paragraphs 4-7, 17-21, and 23-24 of Exhibit 1012 is
`
`relevant to arguments raised in TQ Delta’s Response and relevant to the state of
`
`the art. See Rules of Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,620 (Aug. 14, 2014); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive
`
`Cas. Ins., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) (“The law is well
`
`established that the Board will not exclude evidence that is proffered to show what
`
`a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known about the relevant field of
`
`art.”).
`
`Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny TQ Delta’s
`
`Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1012 under Fed. R. Evid. 402. See Kyocera Corp. v.
`
`Softview LLC, IPR2013-00007, Paper 51 at 34 (PTAB March 27, 2014) (a motion
`
`5
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`to exclude “is neither a substantive sur-reply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing
`
`whether a reply or supporting evidence is of appropriate scope.”); see also Laird
`
`Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00025, Paper 45 at 44
`
`(PTAB Mar. 25, 2015) (“A motion to exclude . . . is not an appropriate mechanism
`
`for challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the proper weight that should be
`
`afforded an argument.”).
`
`II. The Board Should Not Exclude Exhibit 1012 Under Fed. R. Evid. 403
`TQ Delta also argues that even if relevant, the admission of Exhibit 1012
`
`causes “unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and wasted time” and should be
`
`excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Mot. Excl. at 3 and 4.
`
`Other than the above noted conclusory assertion, however, TQ Delta
`
`provides no explanation or evidence demonstrating that the “probative value [of
`
`Exhibit 1012] is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. There is no credible reason whatsoever to exclude this probative
`
`evidence. Moreover, “[s]imilar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting
`
`as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine
`
`and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented.” Mobotix Corp., v. Comcam
`
`International, Inc., Case IPR2015-00093, Paper 22 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016); see
`
`also, e.g., Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941)
`
`6
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`(“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is
`
`equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, because TQ Delta has not met its burden to show any prejudicial
`
`effect and because the Board is well-positioned to weigh the evidence, admissible
`
`Exhibit 1012 should not be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the above noted reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny TQ Delta’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`October 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01466
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`service was made on the TQ Delta as detailed below.
`
`Date of service
`
`October 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com;
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com; smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com;
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com; rchiplunkar@mcandrews-ip.com;
`dpetty@mcandrews-ip.com; TQD-IPR2016-01466@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Documents served
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Exclude
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`David Z. Petty
`Rajendra A. Chiplunkar (admitted PHV)
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`8
`
`