`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC. and FITBIT, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2017-003181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01554 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`Valencell’s Opposition confirms that Exhibits 2152 and 2153 should be
`
`excluded. Valencell failed to demonstrate that good cause exists for “excusal” of
`
`its
`
`late service of supplemental evidence. Rather, Valencell’s arguments
`
`demonstrate that it blatantly disregarded its duty of candor and good faith by
`
`failing to notify Apple or the Board that it had missed its deadline, or providing
`
`any explanation for the missed deadline, when it filed its supplemental evidence–
`
`even though it now admits that it knew it was filing its supplemental evidence after
`
`the deadline had passed. Valencell’s lack of candor imposed unnecessary costs on
`
`both Apple and the Board. Finally, even if Valencell’s supplemental evidence is
`
`admitted, Exhibits 2152 and 2153 should be excluded because they are hearsay.
`
`I.
`
`
`VALENCELL FAILED TO UPHOLD ITS DUTY OF CANDOR
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.11
`
`Valencell’s failure to comply with its duty of candor follows a pattern of
`
`Valencell’s mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, which are well-
`
`documented. (See e.g., Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 32, pp. 2-3, 10, 19-20; Petitioner’s
`
`Sur-reply to Motion to Amend, Paper 39, p. 6; Petitioner’s Response to Motion for
`
`Observations, Paper 45, pp. 1, 5, 6, 8; see also IPR2017-00319, Papers 8 and 9;
`
`IPR2017-00321, Papers 9 and 10.)
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(a), “[p]arties and individuals involved in the
`
`proceeding have a duty of candor and good faith to the Office during the course of
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`a proceeding.” Valencell forsook this duty in handling its response to Apple’s
`
`objections to Exhibits 2152 and 2153. Valencell acknowledges that it knew
`
`Exhibits 2152 and 2153 were inadmissible at the time it filed them with its
`
`response. (Paper 47, p. 3 (“Valencell’s counsel pro-actively contacted Analog
`
`Devices via email (see Exhibit 2156) to initiate the process of obtaining the
`
`necessary declaration relating to Exhibits 2152 and 2153….”) (emphasis added).)
`
`Thus, Valencell knew it needed to serve supplemental evidence to attempt to cure
`
`the deficiencies of Exhibits 2152 and 2153. Indeed, Apple timely objected to
`
`Exhibits 2152 and 2153. (See Paper 44, p. 1.)
`
`Yet, when the deadline for service of supplemental evidence came–and
`
`went–and Valencell did not have the needed supplemental evidence, Valencell
`
`remained silent. Valencell did not alert Apple or the Board. Valencell did not
`
`request leave from the Board to extend its deadline. Valencell did not provide any
`
`reason for failing to meet its deadline. Instead, Valencell served its supplemental
`
`evidence after the deadline passed, presumably hoping that Apple and the Board
`
`would not be aware of or take issue with the missed deadline.
`
`Extenuating circumstances may warrant leniency; misleading tactics do not.
`
`Valencell now beseeches the Board to excuse its actions for “good cause” and “in
`
`the interests of justice.” (Paper 47, p. 2.) Valencell’s ship sailed when it failed to
`
`bring its late service of supplemental evidence to the Board’s attention prior to or
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`at the time of service. Thus, Valencell failed to fulfill its duty of candor and good
`
`faith, and the late-submitted supplemental evidence should be excluded.
`
` VALENCELL’S EXCUSES FOR LATE SERVICE OF II.
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE ARE INSUFFICIENT
`
`ITS
`
`Valencell’s excuses do not warrant the Board’s relief under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.5(c)(3). First, according to Valencell, it requested expedited processing and paid
`
`an additional fee for Mr. Wong’s declaration on or about January 5, 2018. (Paper
`
`47, p. 3.) The “two to five business days” for expedited processing would have
`
`meant that Valencell should have received the declaration, at the latest, by January
`
`12, 2018–eleven days before its supplemental evidence was due. (See id.) Yet
`
`Valencell does not allege that it made any efforts to contact anyone at Analog
`
`Devices during that time.
`
`Second, Valencell tries to blame the weather for its failure, alleging that
`
`“there were delays caused by extreme weather along the East Coast throughout the
`
`month of January, impacting businesses and their operations.” (Paper 47, p. 3.)
`
`There is no evidence–in the declaration of Mr. Wong, or elsewhere–that inclement
`
`weather played any role in Valencell’s failure to timely serve its supplemental
`
`evidence. Indeed, the delay at Analog Devices appears to simply have been
`
`because they were “short staffed.” (Paper 47, p. 3.) Moreover, Valencell could
`
`have started the process of gathering supplemental evidence far sooner–while
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`preparing its reply to Apple’s MTA Opposition (filed December 5, 2017)–not after
`
`filing its reply with Exhibits 2152 and 2153 on December 29, 2017. Thus, they
`
`were not proactive, as they now suggest they were.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should not grant Valencell’s request for relief for
`
`missing its deadline to serve supplemental evidence.
`
` VALENCELL’S NEW EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXPUNGED III.
`
`
`In addition to the untimely served declaration of Mr. Wong, filed as Exhibit
`
`2154, Valencell now also submits additional evidence–Exhibits 2155-2157. These
`
`Exhibits were not previously served on Apple with the late supplemental evidence
`
`and are inappropriate now. Because Valencell’s supplemental evidence (Ex. 2154)
`
`should not be admitted, Exhibits 2155-2157 should be expunged along with
`
`Exhibit 2154.
`
` EXHIBITS 2152 AND 2153 ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY HEARSAY IV.
`
`
`EXCEPTION
`
`The party seeking to admit the evidence has the burden of proving that the
`
`admissibility requirements are met. See, e.g., Bourjaily v. U.S., 483 U.S. 171, 175-
`
`76 (1987). Valencell admits that Exhibits 2152 and 2153 “are offered for their
`
`truth,” and thus satisfy the definition of hearsay under FRE 801(c). (Paper 47, p.
`
`8.) Valencell alleges instead that Exhibits 2152 and 2153 fall under exceptions to
`
`the hearsay rule provided by FRE 803(17) and FRE 803(6). (Paper 47, pp. 8-11.)
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`Valencell is wrong on both accounts. First, Valencell has not shown that
`
`Exhibits 2152 and 2153 are “[m]arket quotations, lists, directories, or other
`
`compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular
`
`occupations,” under FRE 803(17). Indeed, Valencell only alleges that “Exhibits
`
`2152 and 2153 are technical documents that are intended to summarize the
`
`features, specifications, applications, and other technical characteristics of Analog
`
`Device’s products,” not any of the enumerated publications in FRE 803(17). (Paper
`
`47, p. 9.) And Valencell’s allegation that data sheets such as Exhibits 2152 and
`
`2153 “are generally relied upon by engineers as well as other professionals in the
`
`technical field,” is mere attorney argument, unsupported by the declaration of Mr.
`
`Wong. Accordingly, Valencell has not satisfied FRE 803(17).
`
`Second, Valencell has not shown that Exhibits 2152 and 2153 are a
`
`“business record” under FRE 803(6). The data sheets of Exhibits 2152 and 2153
`
`are not “[a] record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis,” as required
`
`by FRE 803(6) (emphasis added). Indeed, Valencell asserts that they are “technical
`
`documents that are intended to summarize the features, specifications, applications,
`
`and other technical characteristics of Analog Device’s products.” (Paper 47, p. 9.)
`
`Accordingly, Valencell has not satisfied FRE 803(6).
`
`Finally, Valencell’s reliance on the residual exception under FRE 807 fails
`
`at least because Valencell did not meet the notice requirement of FRE 807(b).
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Specht/
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Registration No. 54,463
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`Date: February 23, 2018
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`Case IPR2017-00318
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,269
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above
`
`captioned PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`was served electronically via email in its entirety on February 23, 2018 on the
`
`following:
`
`Justin B. Kimble (Lead Counsel)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (Back-up Counsel)
`Nicholas C. Kliewer (Back-up Counsel)
`T. William Kennedy (Back-up Counsel)
`Jonathan H. Rastegar (Back-up Counsel)
`Brian P. Herrmann (Back-up Counsel)
`Marcus Benavides (Back-up Counsel)
`R. Scott Rhoades (Back-up Counsel)
`Sanford E. Warren, Jr. (Back-up Counsel)
`
`Harper Batts (Counsel for Fitbit, Inc.)
`Jeremy Taylor (Counsel for Fitbit, Inc.)
`
`JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`bkennedy@bcpc-law.com
`jrastegar@bcpc-law.com
`bherrmann@bcpc-law.com
`mbenavides@bcpc-law.com
`srhoades@wriplaw.com
`swarren@wriplaw.com
`
`harper.batts@bakerbotts.com
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`dlfitbit-valencell@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 23, 2018
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Michael D. Specht/
`
`Michael D. Specht
`Registration No. 54,463
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`