`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: March 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Exhibits 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072
`should be excluded for being new evidence used to support new
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 1
`A.
`arguments .......................................................................................... 1
`B.
`replacement attempt of Dr. Davis ....................................................... 4
`C.
`as out-of-scope testimony .................................................................. 8
`Exhibit 1074 should be excluded for violating the Board’s order ....... 8
`D.
`E.
`Exhibit 1067 should be excluded under FRE 106 ............................... 9
`F.
`should be excluded for lack of relevance as they are uncited............ 10
`III. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Exhibit 1065 should further be excluded as an improper
`
`Certain portions of Exhibits 2038 and 2039 should be excluded
`
`Exhibits 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024, 1029-1047, and 1057-1061
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c) and the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence, Caltech respectfully moves to exclude Exhibits 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024,
`
`1029-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1071, 1072 and portions of Exhibits
`
`2038 and 2039. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to inter partes proceedings.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62; LKQ Corp. v. Clearlamp, LLC, IPR2013-00020, Paper 17, at 3
`
`(Mar. 5, 2013).
`
`Having recognized that the petition’s arguments and evidence cannot sustain
`
`a finding of unpatentability, Petitioner has engaged in an improper rehabilitation
`
`campaign with new arguments, new evidence, and testimony elicited from out-of-
`
`scope questions. The new exhibits must be excluded because they largely lack
`
`relevance to any instituted ground, and they are unduly prejudicial to Caltech
`
`because Caltech lacks any meaningful opportunity respond to the new evidence.
`
`FRE 401; 402; 403.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Exhibits 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072 should
`be excluded for being new evidence used to support new arguments
`
`Exhibits 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072 were not
`
`submitted until after Caltech had filed its Patent Owner Response. To the extent
`
`those exhibits were cited in Petitioner’s reply, they were cited in support of
`
`arguments that were not made in the petition and were therefore improper to raise
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`for the first time in Petitioner’s reply. 37 CFR §42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, 821 F. 3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As such, they
`
`are not relevant to the instituted grounds of review. FRE 401; FRE 402.
`
`Exhibits 1044-1049, 1057-1060, 1071, and 1072 are various diagrams,
`
`including Tanner graphs, that were admittedly created by Petitioner’s lawyers (see,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2038, 415:14-18) and purport to depict the prior art. Many of these
`
`exhibits were first introduced in the depositions of Dr. Mitzenmacher (Exs. 1044-
`
`1049) and Dr. Divsalar (Exs. 1057-1060). The questions relating to these exhibits
`
`were largely attempts to authenticate the exhibits so that Petitioner could rely on
`
`them in its reply to support new arguments. For example, Petitioner cites to
`
`Exhibit 1048 in its reply, claiming that Caltech’s expert only had one objection to
`
`it.1 Reply 9. However, Dr. Mitzenmacher made it clear that “I think that’s one
`
`problem I have, there may be others. I may require some time to examine and map
`
`
`
`1 That one objection, of course, is a meaningful one that underscores a defective
`
`obviousness inquiry that ignored fundamental aspects of how Ping’s codes are
`
`constructed, illustrates that the proposed modification breaks the constraints of
`
`Ping’s code, and renders the attorney-created graph technically inaccurate and
`
`inapposite. See e.g., POR 7-9, 31-34.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`this out in order to see if it was consistent with what Ping had said.” Ex. 2038,
`
`427:3-7. Petitioner cannot argue that these exhibits are necessary to respond to
`
`Caltech’s arguments that the petition was materially flawed.
`
`Exhibit 1068 is purportedly a “[s]imulation of Regular and Irregular
`
`Divsalar Codes” conducted by Dr. Frey. Petitioner relies on this exhibit to show
`
`that a newly proposed modification to Ping “would not have been difficult for a
`
`POSA to generate” and “would have had a reasonable expectation of success.”
`
`Reply 15-17. But the petition never discusses reasonable expectation of success,
`
`and so the evidence lacks relevance to any of the instituted grounds. There is
`
`simply no reason why such evidence or arguments could not have been included in
`
`the petition. In addition, the simulation purports to test a Ping code whose Hd sub-
`
`matrix has been modified in two different, specific, and complicated, ways. See
`
`Ex. 1065 ¶¶48, 52 (depicting the distribution of weights in Petitioner’s two new
`
`modifications to Ping). The petition never presented these proposed
`
`modifications—instead, Petitioner only gave the vague proposal of modifying
`
`Ping’s Hd sub-matrix to have “some columns to weight 9 and others to weight 3.”
`
`Pet. 42. Such a vague proposal did not put Caltech on notice of Petitioner’s new
`
`complicated modifications, and one of them even admits to have “column weights
`
`four, five, or nine.” Ex. 1065 ¶52. Thus, the new simulation data must be
`
`excluded as it is a completely new and untimely theory not relevant to any
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`instituted grounds.
`
`Exhibit 1065 is Dr. Frey’s declaration in support of Petitioner’s reply. A
`
`number of portions relate to new arguments and new evidence, including the
`
`portions discussing experimental data and attorney-created figures, as explained
`
`above. Since the Board “will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of
`
`the reply,” the declaration should be excluded in its entirety. Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also Intelligent
`
`Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge, 821 F. 3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in excluding Petitioner’s reply
`
`and accompanying declaration because it presented new issues).
`
`These exhibits should also be excluded for being unduly prejudicial to
`
`Caltech. FRE 403. Because the exhibits were introduced in Petitioner’s reply,
`
`Caltech will have no meaningful opportunity to rebut them. Although the Board
`
`has granted Caltech a short surreply, Caltech will not be able to introduce any new
`
`evidence to adequately rebut Petitioner’s new evidence, such as expert testimony
`
`addressing inaccuracies in the new exhibits. See Paper 43.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 1065 should further be excluded as an improper
`replacement attempt of Dr. Davis
`
`As mentioned above, Exhibit 1065 is a declaration of Dr. Frey. In addition
`
`to the reasons above, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to execute a last-minute
`
`replacement of experts, Exhibit 1065 should also be excluded because Caltech
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`would be unduly prejudiced. Petitioner’s original expert was Dr. Davis who now
`
`claims to have been unavailable to provide a declaration for Petitioner’s reply.
`
`Instead, Petitioner submitted a declaration from Dr. Frey.
`
`As an initial matter, Dr. Frey does not state that he considered Dr. Davis’s
`
`cross-examination transcript or include it in the list of materials he reviewed. Id.,
`
`¶11. Despite Petitioner’s attempt to rehabilitate its petition expert by presenting a
`
`second witness to “agree” with the direct testimony, Dr. Frey cannot adopt or
`
`credibly address Dr. Davis’s declaration without at least addressing—or at
`
`minimum at least considering—Dr. Davis’s cross-examination.
`
`In any event, the problems with Dr. Davis’s testimony and the petition case
`
`remain regardless of whether Dr. Frey incorporates it or not. As explained in
`
`Caltech’s Patent Owner response, Dr. Davis’s testimony parrots attorney argument
`
`from the petition, but fails to address critical aspects of the cited references,
`
`ignores the unpredictability in the art, and contains various basic errors. For
`
`example, Dr. Davis ignores the puncturing and error floors described in the Frey
`
`reference, does not understand MacKay’s teachings regarding a “super-Poisson”
`
`distribution, and fails to address reasonable expectation of success. PO Response
`
`(Paper 32) pp. 10-11, 44-49. Nothing about Dr. Frey’s eleventh hour declaration
`
`or his conclusory assertion that he agrees with Dr. Davis’s declaration remedies
`
`any of these issues.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`In addition, Caltech has been prejudiced by this late substitution of experts.
`
`For example, because Dr. Frey has not addressed or considered Dr. Davis’s cross-
`
`examination testimony, Caltech is effectively denied meaningful opportunity to
`
`now cross-examine Dr. Frey. While Petitioner may wish to insulate Dr. Frey from
`
`impeachment with this material (or simply wish Dr. Davis’s cross-examination
`
`testimony to disappear), Petitioner cannot have it both ways—i.e., cherry picking
`
`direct testimony prior to the scrutiny of cross-examination.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s stated reasons for replacing Dr. Davis strain
`
`credulity. Despite ample opportunity, Petitioner never informed Caltech in
`
`advance that they intended to replace Dr. Davis as a witness. Rather, Petitioner
`
`first stated in its reply that as a result of “relocat[ing] to Europe pursuant to a
`
`Fulbright Scholar Award …, he was unavailable to work on the Reply. Reply 3
`
`n.1. But Petitioner fails to mention that Dr. Davis received the Fulbright award in
`
`February 2017, and his European obligations to the award began in September
`
`2017.2 Indeed, by early September 2017, Dr. Davis appears to have already began
`
`
`
`2 See, e.g., https://news.richmond.edu/releases/article/-/14096/ur-math-
`
`professor-jim-davis-selected-for-fulbright-global-award-
`
`.html?sma=sm.000008x8mclgv5czryfee9s17g82n (article dated February 2017
`
`(continued...)
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`lecturing in Germany,3 yet Petitioner still was able to make him available for a 3-
`
`day deposition in September. Given that Dr. Davis was aware of his obligations
`
`months before his deposition, there was no reason that Petitioner had to surprise
`
`Caltech by replacing its expert with its reply brief.
`
`In addition, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Davis provide any explanation as to
`
`why Dr. Davis could not have assisted in the Reply while in Europe. Dr. Davis’s
`
`responsibilities appear to be “meet[ing] with other local experts and giv[ing]
`
`seminar talks and public lectures.”4 There is no indication such activities would
`
`prevent Dr. Davis from assisting in the reply, especially in light of the requirement
`
`
`
`(...continued from previous page)
`
`describing Dr. Davis’s Fulbright responsibilities in Germany, France and Canada);
`
`https://www.cies.org/grantee/james-davis (showing a start date of September
`
`2017).
`
`3 See, e.g., http://cage.ugent.be/~ml/irsee5/abstract_book.pdf at 4.
`
`4 https://news.richmond.edu/releases/article/-/14096/ur-math-professor-jim-
`
`davis-selected-for-fulbright-global-award-
`
`.html?sma=sm.000008x8mclgv5czryfee9s17g82n
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`that the reply is to “only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition or patent owner response” (37 CFR §42.23(b)) and Dr. Davis’s
`
`testimony that “the typing [for the petition declarations] was done at the law firm’s
`
`end.” Ex. 2033; 12:6-7. In addition, Dr. Davis is fully available for deposition in
`
`the United States. Ex. 1073, ¶3. Thus, there appears to be no legitimate reason for
`
`Petitioner to have needed to prejudice Caltech by replacing its expert so late in the
`
`game. For these reasons, Exhibit 1065 in its entirety should be excluded.
`
`C. Certain portions of Exhibits 2038 and 2039 should be excluded as
`out-of-scope testimony
`
`Exhibits 2038 and 2039 are the deposition transcripts of Caltech witnesses
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher and Dr. Divsalar, respectively. As a result of the Board’s
`
`schedule regarding Caltech’s motion for sanctions, Caltech was required to submit
`
`copies of those transcripts before they would have been submitted with Petitioner’s
`
`reply to the Patent Owner response. See Paper 41. For the reasons identified in
`
`Caltech’s motion for sanctions (Paper 42), the portions of the deposition transcripts
`
`that are outside the scope of the witnesses’ direct testimony should be excluded.
`
`FRE 401-403, 611(b).
`
`D. Exhibit 1074 should be excluded for violating the Board’s order
`
`In authorizing Petitioner to file Exhibit 1074, the Board stated that it “should
`
`not be used for substantive arguments.” Paper 41, 2. Yet Exhibit 1074 contains
`
`extensive substantive argument about why each identified portion of the
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`Mitzenmacher and Divsalar deposition transcripts are supposedly within the scope
`
`of their direct testimony. Indeed, Petitioner’s opposition admits that Exhibit 1074
`
`is a “detailed” explanation. Paper 47, 2. Exhibit 1074 is also prejudicial because it
`
`essentially gave Petitioner additional pages of briefing. Thus, Exhibit 1074 should
`
`be excluded for lack of relevance and for prejudice. FRE 401, 402, 403.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1067 should be excluded under FRE 106
`
`Exhibit 1067 is a decision from Judge Pfaelzer in the case California
`
`Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-
`
`JEM, 2015 WL 11089495 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015). Petitioner cites to it for the
`
`proposition that DVB-S2 does not practice the claimed invention. Reply 21-22.
`
`However, it should be noted Petitioner’s argument misstates the significance of the
`
`exhibit, an order denying Caltech’s motion for summary judgment of infringement.
`
`Consideration of Caltech’s motion required the court to “view facts and draw
`
`reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Ex. 1067, *2. Judge
`
`Pfaelzer did not rule that there was no infringement as a matter of law, but rather
`
`only held that Hughes’s infringement of the ’032 patent involved a genuine dispute
`
`of material fact to be resolved by the jury. Id, *5.
`
`Also, per FRE 106, the Board should in fairness consider other writings, or
`
`otherwise exclude the exhibit, because the decision relies on a narrow claim
`
`construction that would be improper for the Board to adopt under the “broadest
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`reasonable interpretation” standard. In particular, the Board should consider that
`
`Judge Pfaelzer’s decision was in reliance on a narrow construction of “repeat.”
`
`While the court adopted the “plain meaning” of repeat, it explained that this plain
`
`meaning requires “creation of new bits corresponding to or reflecting the value of
`
`the original bits” and precludes “the re-use of a bit.” California Institute of
`
`Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, Dkt.
`
`105, p. 10-11 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014).
`
`The Board should also consider that in the more recent district court
`
`litigation against Petitioner, the same court expressly rejected the argument that the
`
`plain meaning of “repeat” would exclude reuse. California Institute of Technology
`
`v. Broadcom Limited, et al., No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGRx, Dkt. 213, p. 1 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Jul. 12, 2017) (“[T]he term ‘repeat’ may encompass duplication and reuse.”).
`
`That is, the more recent claim construction order reaches a different conclusion
`
`than the one relied on by Petitioner, and directly undermines Petitioner’s argument
`
`regarding Caltech’s nexus showing. The Board should also consider that it is to
`
`give claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation.” See Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).
`
`F.
`Exhibits 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024, 1029-1047, and 1057-1061 should
`be excluded for lack of relevance as they are uncited
`
`Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024, 1044-1047,
`
`and 1057-1061. These exhibits are not cited in the petition or Petitioner’s reply
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`and are therefore not relevant to any instituted grounds of review. FRE 401; FRE
`
`402. Admission of these exhibits would be unduly prejudicial to Caltech, as
`
`Caltech lacks notice as to if and how Petitioner intends to rely on these exhibits in
`
`this proceeding or any future appeal. FRE 403. For the same reasons, these
`
`exhibits should be expunged from the record, since Caltech would have no
`
`meaningful opportunity to respond if Petitioner were to rely on these exhibits in
`
`this or a later proceeding.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, Exhibits 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024, 1029-1049, 1057-1061,
`
`1065, 1067, 1068, 1071, 1072 and portions of Exhibits 2038 and 2039 should be
`
`excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on
`
`this 28th day of March, 2018, on the Petitioner at the electronic service addresses of
`
`the Petitioner as follows:
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Dominic Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`James M. Dowd
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Arthur Shum
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`james.dowd@wilmerhale.com
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`arthur.shum@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`Date: March 28, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`