UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE
`
`
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY OF DR. GODMAR BACK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME DATA LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01737
`Patent 8,880,862
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE
`
`
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY OF DR. GODMAR BACK
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this motion for observations
`
`regarding the cross-examination of Dr. Godmar Back. Petitioner’s observations,
`
`set forth below, concern the 11/2/17 and 12/7/17 testimony of Dr. Back, which is
`
`presented in its entirety in Exs. A-1046, and A-1047, respectively.
`
`OBSERVATION 1: Dr. Back testified that a POSITA would have been
`encouraged to use RAM for preloading, and would have been discouraged
`from using flash, due to the high cost of flash and its slower speed.
`In Ex. A-1046 at 45:18-46:16, when asked whether the second memory
`
`claimed in Amended Claim 174 could be either volatile or non-volatile memory,
`
`Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that “[a] person of skill in the art would
`
`not think of using non-volatile memory for its higher cost [or] for its slower rate of
`
`access speed;” instead, “all the embodiments of the patent envision the use of
`
`volatile memory.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s
`
`contrary later testimony, from his declaration of 12/1/17, to support their
`
`arguments that considerations of speed and cost would have dissuaded a POSITA
`
`from adding RAM to Sukegewa’s system for purposes of preloading, as proposed
`
`in Petitioner’s combinations of Sukegawa with Dye and Kroeker, and of Sukegawa
`
`with Dye and Esfahani. See Pap. 39, 2-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶10-69.
`
`In Ex. A-1046 at 47:21-48:6, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that
`
`“[p]referably, the cache 13 is implemented in SDRAM, which I have pointed out a
`
`person of skill in the art would understand to be volatile memory.” In Ex. A-1046
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`at 50:10-51:1, when asked why it would be preferable to implement cache 13 in
`
`SDRAM, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that “[v]olatile memory is faster,
`
`is cheaper, and, most importantly, for the method of preloading envisioned in the
`
`'862 patent, the use of non-volatile memory is neither necessary, nor beneficial.”
`
`This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s contrary later testimony
`
`to support their speed and cost arguments against Petitioner’s Sukegawa-based
`
`combinations. See Pap. 39, 2-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶10-69.
`
`In Ex. A-1046 at 58:9-59:1, when asked whether it was his opinion that flash
`
`memory was expensive on a per bit basis at the time of invention relative to
`
`volatile memory, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that “a person of
`
`ordinary skill would probably be discouraged from the use of non-volatile memory
`
`for a number of reasons, one of which is the higher price of the memory.” This is
`
`relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s later testimony to support their
`
`argument that “DRAM was more expensive than flash on a per-megabyte basis, or
`
`at least equally as expensive—not less.” Pap. 39, 4; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`In Ex. A-1046 at 60:12-60:21, when asked whether he agreed or disagreed
`
`with a statement by Dr. Neuhauser that flash memory based designs were
`
`expensive on a per bit basis at the time of invention, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination that “I think that I would not have cited to this statement if I had
`
`disagreed with it.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`later testimony to support their argument “that DRAM was more expensive than
`
`flash on a per-megabyte basis, or at least equally as expensive—not less.” Pap. 39,
`
`4; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`In Ex. A-1046 at 64:5-64:15, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that
`
`“[t]he use of non-volatile memory is not necessary or beneficial for the preloading
`
`mechanism envisioned by the '862 patent specification,” and that “I do believe that
`
`a person of skill in the art would have been discouraged from the use of non-
`
`volatile memory because it is slower and likely also more expensive.” This is
`
`relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s contrary later testimony to
`
`support their speed and cost arguments against Petitioner’s Sukegawa-based
`
`combinations. See Pap. 39, 2-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶10-69.
`
`In Ex. A-1046 at 65:18-66:3, when asked whether it was his opinion that a
`
`POSITA would have found it preferable to implement cache 13 as described by the
`
`'862 patent in RAM, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that “[i]t is my
`
`opinion that that is what the patent specification says.” In Ex. A-1046 at 65:5-
`
`67:2, when asked why RAM would be preferable, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination that the reasons include “the slower speed and likely the high expense
`
`associated with non-volatile memory.” In Ex. A-1046 at 68:13-69:2, when asked if
`
`a POSITA would be encouraged to use volatile memory, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination “[y]es, I do think that.” In Ex. A-1046 at 117:20-118:9, Dr.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`Back testified on cross-examination that “non-volatile memory is slower.” This is
`
`relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s contrary later testimony to
`
`support their speed and cost arguments against Petitioner’s Sukegawa-based
`
`combinations. See Pap. 39, 2-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶10-69.
`
`OBSERVATION 2: Dr. Back testified that a POSITA would have had the
`same understanding of the meaning of the term “preloading” when reading
`the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,608 and the amended claims of the '862
`Patent.
`In Ex. A-1046 at 76:22-78:15, when asked whether he had provided an
`
`opinion on the meaning of the term “preloading” at paragraph 47 on page 18 of his
`
`IPR2016-01365 declaration in support of Patent Owner’s response, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination “let me be specific what I am doing the section is …
`
`I am construing the term ‘preloading’ as it would be understood by a person skilled
`
`in the art reading the claims and the specification of the '608 patent….” In Ex. A-
`
`1046 at 81:12-82:2, when asked whether the '608 and '862 patents share the same
`
`specification, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that “[y]es, I do think that
`
`those two patents share the same specification.” In Ex. A-1046 at 82:4-83:8, when
`
`asked whether a person of ordinary skill would have had the same understanding of
`
`the meaning of the term “preloading” when reading the claims of the '608 patent
`
`and the amended claims of the '862 patent, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination
`
`that “I would say they would have the same understanding.” This is relevant
`
`because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their arguments
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`that prior art and combinations of prior art applied to the proposed substitute
`
`claims would not meet a construction of “preloading” that is different from, and
`
`narrower than, the construction previously submitted by Patent Owner and Dr.
`
`Back in the related IPR2016-01365 proceeding. Pap. 31, 2-8; Pap. 39, 10-11; Ex.
`
`2025, ¶¶13-16; Ex. 2027, ¶¶70-84.
`
`OBSERVATION 3: Dr. Back testified that preloading may occur prior to host
`system reset, that preloading may occur upon host system power-up and reset,
`and that booting and preloading may be performed simultaneously.
`In Ex. A-1046 at 138:13-22, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination that
`
`“preloading has to occur, prior to host system reset.” In Ex. A-1046 at 130:1-
`
`132:2, when asked about description at column 20 of the '862 Patent, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination that “if you read further down in the paragraph it
`
`lists a number of unique aspects to that technique of data preloading that's
`
`discussed in the '862 patent. For example, that it has to happen upon host system
`
`power-up and reset and so on….” In Ex. A-1046 at 120:13-121:11, when asked
`
`whether a POSITA would have understood that the data storage controller may
`
`receive requests for preloaded boot data while it is preloading other boot data, Dr.
`
`Back testified on cross-examination that “[y]es, that is correct,” adding that “it is
`
`possible for the data storage controller to … engage in the preloading process
`
`while already servicing requests for preloaded data during that second phase where
`
`booting and preloading may be performed simultaneously.” This is relevant
`
`5
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their arguments
`
`that Settsu does not “preload” because it “only begins loading boot data after
`
`receiving a request over [a] computer bus,” and that Esfahani does not “preload”
`
`because “its boot data is loaded into volatile RAM only after the CPU, system bus,
`
`and a low-level firmware OS have all been initialized.” Pap. 31, 4-8; Pap. 39, 10-
`
`12; Ex. 2025, ¶¶13-15, 61; Ex. 2027, ¶¶70-77, 84.
`
`OBSERVATION 4: Dr. Back testified that he failed to consider, prior to
`signing his October 11, 2017 declaration, Settsu’s description of a function
`definition file used to load and initialize some OS modules prior to others, to
`allow specific processes to occur faster during boot.
`In Ex. A-1046 at 145:8-146:12, when asked whether he had any opinion as
`
`to whether Zwiegincew's techniques could work in Settsu's system after virtual
`
`memory processing module 22 is enabled, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination
`
`that “[t]hat is not something that I considered,” but added that “Zwiegincew's
`
`techniques cannot be applied until after the virtual memory manager has been
`
`loaded” and that “the virtual memory manager in Settsu's system is labeled 22 and
`
`is part of the main OS module.” In Ex. A-1046 at 148:2-8, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination that “I don't recall addressing application modules and function
`
`definition files in my declaration where I explained why the proposed combination
`
`of Settsu and Zwiegincew would not work. This paragraph is referring to figure 17.
`
`I am referring to figure 5.” In Ex. A-1046 at 149:15-150:4, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination that it “was not necessary for me to consider figure 17 to arrive
`
`6
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`at the conclusion that the proposed combination is not possible,” “[b]ecause I was
`
`able to make that conclusion based on the proposed combination of Settsu and
`
`Zwiegincew that I was asked to [e]valuate in this declaration.” This is relevant
`
`because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their argument
`
`that Zwiegincew cannot be combined with Settsu, since “Zwiegincew’s
`
`prefetching solution typically cannot be used until after the virtual memory
`
`manager has been enabled.” Pap. 31, 8-10; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 18-20.
`
`OBSERVATION 5: Dr. Back testified that Kroeker transfers data from disk
`to cache in anticipation of a request for that data from the host system, and
`that this transfer occurs before a request for the data is received from the host
`system.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 112:19-113:4, when asked whether a POSITA would have
`
`understood from Kroeker's abstract that Kroeker transfers data from disk to cache
`
`in anticipation of a request for that data from the host system, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination - “I think they would have.” In Ex. A-1047 at 113:6-113:13,
`
`when asked whether a POSITA have understood from Kroeker's abstract that this
`
`transfer occurs before a request for data is received from the host system, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination “Yes, I think the paragraph says -- that is stated in
`
`one of the sentences, yeah.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr.
`
`Back’s testimony to support their argument that “none of the known prior art
`
`references—alone or in combination—teaches or suggests the subject matter of the
`
`proposed claims.” Pap. 19, 25; Pap. 31, 11; Ex. 2025 ¶ 27; Ex. 2022 ¶¶70-71.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`OBSERVATION 6: Dr. Back testified that he failed to consider whether
`Kroeker’s method of transferring data from disk to cache in anticipation of a
`later request for that data speeds Kroeker’s boot process.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 115:5-19, when asked whether a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the described prefetching from disk to cache occurs before the host
`
`computer is ready for data but after the disk drive has completed its reset routine,
`
`Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “[i]n the abstract it says, indeed, before the
`
`computer is ready, but after disk drive has completed its reset routine, the disk
`
`drive accesses the previously requested data and copies it onto the cache of the
`
`disk drive.” In Ex. A-1047 at 114:13-115:3, when asked whether a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Kroeker's disk drive would otherwise be idle during the
`
`period of time after the completion of its reset routine and before the host computer
`
`is ready for data, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “it depends on a number
`
`of factors that would require additional analysis which I have not performed
`
`because I was not asked to do that as part of this declaration.” In Ex. A-1047 at
`
`117:9-118:15, when asked whether a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`prefetching disclosed by Kroeker speeds Kroeker's overall boot process, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination, “I'm not providing critique or evaluation of
`
`Kroeker's method,” and that “I did not evaluate the speed of either system
`
`separately because that is not what I was asked to do in this declaration.” In Ex. A-
`
`1047 at 118:10-15, when asked whether he had an opinion about whether Kroeker
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`itself discloses a faster boot process, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination,
`
`“[t]hat is not something that I was asked to evaluate.” This is relevant because
`
`Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their arguments that
`
`considerations of speed would have dissuaded a POSITA from adding RAM to
`
`Sukegewa’s system for purposes of preloading, as proposed in Petitioner’s
`
`combination of Sukegawa with Dye and Kroeker. See Pap. 39, 2-3, 5-7; Ex. 2027,
`
`¶¶14-16, 34-44.
`
`OBSERVATION 7: Dr. Back testified that the cost of Sukegawa’s system
`when modified in view of Kroeker “could” be higher, and that that the speed
`of Sukegawa’s system when modified in view of Kroeker “may” be slower.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 117:17-118:15, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination, “I
`
`was asked to consider whether a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to
`
`combine Sukegawa's system with Kroeker[’s] system, and in doing so I considered
`
`two motivations that were put in front of me, cost and speed … neither provides a
`
`compelling motivation, because the cost, first of all, could be higher and the speed
`
`is unknowable and it may be slower.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies
`
`on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their arguments that considerations of speed
`
`would have dissuaded a POSITA from adding RAM to Sukegewa’s system for
`
`purposes of preloading, as proposed in Petitioner’s combination of Sukegawa with
`
`Dye and Kroeker. See Pap. 39, 2-3, 5-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶14-16, 34-44.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`OBSERVATION 8: Dr. Back testified that it is possible that the proposed
`modifications to Sukegawa’s system would improve the boot speed of
`Sukegawa’s system.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 91:2-9, when asked whether he would agree that it's also
`
`possible that the proposed modifications may improve the boot speed of
`
`Sukegawa’s system, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “I think the important
`
`statement is we do not know or a person of ordinary skill would not know either.”
`
`In Ex. A-1047 at 91:11-20, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “I think -- I
`
`think either outcome is possible ….” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies
`
`on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their arguments that considerations of speed
`
`would have dissuaded a POSITA from adding RAM to Sukegewa’s system for
`
`purposes of preloading, as proposed in Petitioner’s combination of Sukegawa with
`
`Dye and Kroeker. See Pap. 39, 2-3, 5-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶14-16, 34-44.
`
`OBSERVATION 9: Dr. Back testified that Sukegawa teaches that boot data
`can be read from the flash memory and that said boot data would not need to
`be read from the hard disk.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 97:10-98:2, when asked whether a POSITA would have
`
`understood that there would be periods of time during Sukegawa's boot process in
`
`which data is loaded from flash while the hard disk is idle, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination that “[w]hat Sukegawa does teach is that boot data can be read
`
`from the flash memory and said boot data would not need to be read from the hard
`
`disk. That is at the core of the system as it is described in the patent.” This is
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their
`
`arguments that considerations of speed would have dissuaded a POSITA from
`
`adding RAM to Sukegewa’s system for purposes of preloading, as proposed in
`
`Petitioner’s combination of Sukegawa with Dye and Kroeker. See Pap. 39, 2-3, 5-
`
`7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶14-16, 34-44.
`
`OBSERVATION 10: Dr. Back testified that data that is written to RAM in
`the proposed modified system would have been loaded from the hard disk.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 107:3-19, when asked whether, when he wrote paragraph
`
`37, he considered that in the proposed modified system boot data would be read
`
`from Sukegawa's disk and written into RAM during a period of time when data is
`
`not otherwise being loaded from Sukegawa's disk, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination “So paragraph 37 relates to comparing the relative speeds of the types
`
`of memory. I think you are asking would the data that is being written to RAM
`
`come from the hard disk, and the answer is yes. Would it have been loaded from
`
`the hard disk? That is correct as well. Your statement about during times when the
`
`hard disk otherwise is not used is not supported by -- may or may not be true. It is
`
`not -- not relevant.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s
`
`testimony to support their arguments that considerations of speed would have
`
`dissuaded a POSITA from adding RAM to Sukegewa’s system for purposes of
`
`preloading, as proposed in Petitioner’s combination of Sukegawa with Dye and
`
`Kroeker. See Pap. 39, 2-3, 5-7; Ex. 2027, ¶¶14-16, 34-44.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`OBSERVATION 11: Dr. Back testified that the flash memory cards
`advertised in the issues of PC Magazine cited by Patent Owner are of the type
`used in digital cameras and the like, and that the SDRAM DIMM is of the
`type used as the main memory in a desktop computer.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 67:22-68:7, when asked whether Exhibit 2028 states that
`
`the smart media flash is a squarish non-volatile memory card of the type used in
`
`digital cameras, MP3 music players, and the like, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination “[u]sed in digital cameras, MP3 music players, and the like, uh-huh.”
`
`In Ex. A-1047 at 68:8-11, In Ex. A-1047 at 47:13-48:1, when asked whether a
`
`POSITA would have understood that the SDRAM DIMM cited in his declaration
`
`was designed for use in, for example, a personal computer, Dr. Back testified on
`
`cross-examination “[t]hey would have understood that this type of SDRAM could
`
`be used as the main memory in a desktop computer.” This is relevant because
`
`Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their argument that
`
`“advertisements for flash and DRAM memory from December 1999 through
`
`March 2000 show that DRAM was more expensive than flash on a per-megabyte
`
`basis….” Pap. 39, 4; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`OBSERVATION 12: Dr. Back testified that the prices of the flash memory
`cards advertised in the issues of PC magazine cited by Patent Owner “would
`be dominated” by the cost of the memory itself, and that the prices of SDRAM
`DIMM advertised in the issues of PC magazine cited by Patent Owner would
`reflect the cost of components included in SDRAM DIMM.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 73:12-20, when asked whether it would be fair to say that a
`
`flash memory card is primarily the flash memory itself, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`12
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`examination “I think so. I think the -- it is the flash memory, some additional
`
`circuitry, and the packaging around it, but its price, for example, would -- would be
`
`dominated by the cost of the flash memory itself.” In Ex. A-1047 at 39:15-19,
`
`when asked whether a POSITA in Feb. 2000 would have understood that an
`
`SDRAM DIMM is mounted on a printed circuit board, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination “[y]es, they would have.” In Ex. A-1047 at 37:1-5, when asked
`
`whether a POSITA in Feb. 2000 have understood that an SDRAM DIMM would
`
`include a series of SDRAM integrated circuits, Dr. Back testified “[y]es, they
`
`would, would have.” In Ex. A-1047 at 47:6-11, when asked whether it would be
`
`fair to say that the cost of any components that are included in the SDRAM DIMM
`
`would be reflected in the price of the SDRAM DIMM, Dr. Back testified on cross-
`
`examination “Yes, that's correct.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on
`
`Dr. Back’s testimony to support their argument that “advertisements for flash and
`
`DRAM memory from December 1999 through March 2000 show that DRAM was
`
`more expensive than flash on a per-megabyte basis, or at least equally as
`
`expensive—not less.” Pap. 39, 4; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`OBSERVATION 13: Dr. Back testified that the price of the SDRAM DIMM
`advertised in the issues of PC magazine cited by Patent Owner dropped by
`33% between December 1, 1999 and March 21, 2000.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 61:9-18, when asked whether based on the prices that he
`
`cited, the price charged by the advertising supplier for a 64 megabyte SDRAM
`
`13
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`DIMM module dropped by about a third from December 1, 1999 to March 21,
`
`2000, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “[s]o in these particular
`
`advertisements we see price of 299, 250, and 199, so -- so yes, that's -- I think your
`
`arithmetic is correct.” In Ex. A-1047 at 62:2-10, when asked whether that was a
`
`33% decrease, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “[y]es, yes, but again let me
`
`reiterate. My task here was not to examine price trends in RAM. It was to examine
`
`the question whether the lower or the purported lower cost of RAM would have
`
`motivated the person of ordinary skill to combine the systems, and I do not believe
`
`that to be the case.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s
`
`testimony to support their argument that “[t]he evidence refutes the alleged “cost”
`
`motivation” for “supplement[ing] the flash in Sukegawa with DRAM.” Pap. 39, 3-
`
`5; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`OBSERVATION 14: Dr. Back testified that the flash memory card
`advertisements in the issues of PC magazine cited by Patent Owner show a
`“clear trend leading to price drops for flash.”
`In Ex. A-1047 at 32:8-18, when asked how the March 7 and March 21, 2000
`
`issues show what a POSITA as of February 3, 2000, would have been aware of,
`
`Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “I think that the three advertisements in
`
`paragraph 25, 26, 27 taken together show that a clear trend leading to price drops
`
`for flash took place at the time of the invention.” This is relevant because Patent
`
`Owner relies on Dr. Back’s testimony to support their argument that “[t]he
`
`14
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`evidence refutes the alleged “cost” motivation” for “supplement[ing] the flash in
`
`Sukegawa with DRAM.” Pap. 39, 3-5; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`OBSERVATION 15: Dr. Back testified that he reviewed only the excerpts of
`PC Magazine cited by Patent Owner when forming his opinions, did not
`review any other trade publications, and did not conduct a study of pricing.
`In Ex. A-1047 at 11:16-20, when asked if he reviewed the entirety of the PC
`
`Magazine issues, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “I did not.” In Ex. A-
`
`1047 at 11:10-14, when asked if he reviewed only the excerpts that are included as
`
`exhibits, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “That is correct.” In Ex. A-1047
`
`at 19:15-20:9, when asked if he reviewed any other trade publications, Dr. Back
`
`testified on cross-examination “I personally did not review any other trade
`
`publications….” In Ex. A-1047 at 20:22-21:8, when asked if he had conducted a
`
`study of the markets for flash memory and for RAM during the relevant time
`
`frame, Dr. Back testified on cross-examination “My task was not to conduct a
`
`study of pricing.” This is relevant because Patent Owner relies on Dr. Back’s
`
`testimony to support their argument that “[t]he evidence refutes the alleged “cost”
`
`motivation” for “supplement[ing] the flash in Sukegawa with DRAM.” Pap. 39, 3-
`
`5; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 25-28.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Date: /December 22, 2017/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`/Andrew B. Patrick/
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Andrew B. Patrick, Reg. No. 63,471
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`16
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2016-01737
`Attorney Docket: 39521-0025IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on December 22, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Observations Regarding the Cross-Examination Testimony of Dr.
`
`Godmar Back was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the email
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Joseph F. Edell, Richard Z. Zhang, Desmond S. Jui (pro hac vice)
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`
`William P. Rothwell, Kayvan B. Noroozi (pro hac vice)
`Noroozi PC
`2245 Texas Drive, Suite 300
`Sugar Land, TX 77479
`
`Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`Richard.Zhang.IPR@fischllp.com
`Desmond.Jui.IPR@fischllp.com
`William@noroozipc.com
`Kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
