Filed: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Argument ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, 1072, 2038, and 2039:
`
`Caltech’s Argument That These Are “New Evidence” For “New Arguments”
`
`Should Be Rejected ................................................................................................ 2
`
`B. Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, 1072: Caltech’s Claim To
`
`Prejudice Should Be Rejected Because (1) The Board Is Well Suited To Assign
`
`The Proper Weight to Evidence, (2) Caltech Has Had Ample Opportunity To
`
`Respond, and (3) Caltech Can Still Respond In Its Sur-Replies And Oral
`
`Hearing ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`C. Caltech’s Insinuations Regarding The Veracity Of Dr. Davis’s
`
`Unavailability Are Baseless And Rebutted By Sworn Testimony ......................... 9
`
`D. Caltech Chose Not To Depose Dr. Frey And Faces No Prejudice Because
`
`Dr. Frey Agreed With Dr. Davis’s Testimony, Considered Caltech’s Criticisms,
`
`And Stood Available For Cross-Examination ...................................................... 10
`
`E. Exhibit 1074 Mirrors Caltech’s Own Supplemental Exhibit ...................... 11
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`There Is No Cause To Exclude Ex. 1067 Because The Board Can Assign
`F.
`
`The Appropriate Weight To It .............................................................................. 12
`
`G. Exs. 1006, 1019, 1024, 1029-1047, and 1057-1061 Are Properly In The
`
`Record For Consideration By The Board ............................................................. 12
`
`III. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`I.
`Introduction
`
`Caltech’s motion to exclude is yet another attempt by Caltech to distract
`
`from the invalidity of the claims and avoid the Board’s consideration of the merits.
`
`First, a motion to exclude is not the appropriate vehicle for objecting to the
`
`scope of reply evidence. As the Board has “stated repeatedly”:
`
`a motion to exclude is not a vehicle for arguing that Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and supporting evidence are outside the proper scope of a
`
`reply. A motion to exclude evidence for the purpose of striking or
`
`excluding an opponent’s brief and/or evidence that a party believes
`
`goes beyond what is permitted under 37 CFR § 42.23 is improper. An
`
`allegation that evidence does not comply with 37 CFR § 42.23 is not a
`
`sufficient reason under the Federal Rules of Evidence for making an
`
`objection and requesting exclusion of such evidence.
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979, Paper No. 62 at 66 (Mar.
`
`15, 2017) (internal footnote citing five other cases to this effect omitted.).
`
`Caltech’s brief merely rehashes arguments related to the scope of evidence
`
`that it already made in its motion for sanctions (paper 42). Even if it were proper
`
`for Caltech to raise these arguments again here (and it is not), Caltech’s motion
`
`should still be denied because the challenged exhibits were properly submitted in
`
`support of the Petition (paper 5) and in response to arguments made by Caltech in
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`its POR (paper 32). Petitioner has raised no new arguments, and instead Caltech
`
`continues to mischaracterize legitimate rebuttals of its positions as “out of scope.”
`
`Second, Caltech’s repeated assertions of prejudice are baseless. Caltech has
`
`knowingly elected not to use evidentiary tools at its disposal, seeking now to
`
`exclude testimony rather than cross-examining Petitioner’s experts. In addition,
`
`the Board has already generously accommodated Caltech by granting it leave to
`
`file a sur-reply and raise its allegations that deposition questions exceeded the
`
`scope of direct testimony through a motion for sanctions.
`
`II. Argument
`
`A. Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, 1072, 2038, and
`
`2039: Caltech’s Argument That These Are “New Evidence” For “New
`
`Arguments” Should Be Rejected
`
`Caltech argues that portions of the deposition transcripts of Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher (Ex. 2038) and Dr. Divsalar (Ex. 2039) as well as Exs. 1044-1049,
`
`1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072 should be excluded under 35 CFR
`
`§42.23(b) because the exhibits are “not relevant” 1 and because the deposition
`
`
`1 Caltech cites Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge as purported
`
`support for its exclusion argument. 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`However, Intelligent Bio-Systems Inc. involved an actual shift in the petitioner’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`questions were “outside the scope of witnesses’ direct testimony.” Mot., 8.
`
`Caltech is mistaken.
`
`First, Caltech’s challenge should be rejected because it is an improper
`
`attempt to challenge the scope of Petitioner’s evidence. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-01979, Paper No. 62 at 66 (Mar. 15, 2017).
`
`Second, as explained in Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Sanctions (paper 47), the questions raised during the cross-examinations of Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher (Ex. 2038) and Dr. Divsalar (Ex.2039) were properly raised in
`
`rebuttal of statements and opinions proffered by Caltech’s experts in declaration
`
`testimony and in support of arguments made in the Petition. See Paper 47; Ex.
`
`1074 (identifying the relevance for each challenged line of questioning).
`
`For the same reasons, as discussed below, the exhibits used to cross-examine
`
`and rebut the declaration testimony of Caltech’s experts (including Exs. 1044-
`
`
`theory of obviousness from using a reference as-is to modifying that reference. Id.
`
`at 1366 (“[T]he Reply presents new issues by changing the unpatentability
`
`rationale from express reliance on Zavgorodny's deprotecting conditions, to
`
`asserting that those conditions would have been obvious to modify.”) (citation
`
`omitted). Caltech can identify no analogous situation in the present case because
`
`no new arguments and no new theories of invalidity have been presented.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`1049, 1057-1061, 1068, 1071, and 1072) as well as Dr. Frey’s declaration
`
`regarding these exhibits (Ex. 1065) are also properly in the record. See Vibrant
`
`Media, Inc. v. General Electric Co., IPR2013-00170, Paper No. 56 at 31-32 (June
`
`26, 2014) (“[T]he mere fact that the rebuttal declaration includes evidence not
`
`discussed specifically in the petition is insufficient to establish the impropriety of
`
`such evidence, much less inadmissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`The very nature of a reply is to respond to the opposition... The need for relying
`
`on evidence not previously discussed in the petition may not exist until a certain
`
`point has been raised in the patent owner response.”) (citations omitted).
`
`Caltech argues that Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1060, 1071, and 1072 were “cited
`
`in support of arguments that were not made in the petition.” Mot., 2. Caltech is
`
`mistaken because each of the exhibits supports an argument made in the Petition
`
`and properly rebuts arguments made by Caltech and its experts.
`
`For example, Ex. 1048 shows a Tanner graph for Ping’s Hd generator matrix
`
`with t=4, k=30,000, and n=90,000. Caltech argues that Ex. 1048 should be
`
`excluded because it supports a new argument. Mot., 2. However, the Petition
`
`discusses Ping’s example of an Hd generator matrix where t=4, k=30,000, and
`
`n=90,000. Pet., 67-68. The Petition also explained that “[e]very generator matrix
`
`corresponds to a Tanner graph, and vice versa.” Pet., 18. Thus, Ex. 1048 is clearly
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`disclosed in the Petition and properly on the record in support of arguments made
`
`in the Petition.
`
`Caltech argues that Ex. 1068 should be excluded because the “petition never
`
`discusses reasonable expectation of success.” Mot., 3. However, it is irrelevant
`
`whether the Petition expressly uses the words “reasonable expectation of success.”
`
`The Petition clearly explains that the modification of Ping would have been
`
`straightforward and improved performance, showing that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSA”) would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 41-
`
`42 (“It would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill to change
`
`Ping’s generator Hd matrix such that not all columns had the same weight.”). As
`
`Dr. Davis explained, “it was common knowledge that the performance of error-
`
`correcting code could be improved with irregularity.” Ex. 1004, ¶ 61. Thus, Ex.
`
`1068 supports arguments made in the Petition that the modification of Ping would
`
`have been straightforward and improved performance.
`
`Caltech also argued that it was “impossible” to tell how the combination of
`
`Ping and MacKay would perform. POR, 42-43 (“it is impossible to tell how [the
`
`combination of Ping and MacKay] would perform relative to MacKay’s codes”);
`
`Ex. 2004, ¶ 123(“[i]t is impossible to tell whether modifying some columns to 9
`
`and some to 3 would result in an improvement.”). This argument is incorrect, and
`
`Petitioner is entitled to respond in support of its contention that these modifications
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`would have been straightforward and would be expected to improve performance.
`
`Dr. Frey demonstrated in Ex. 1068 that such a combination (as originally argued)
`
`can be made through a straightforward implementation and would have improved
`
`performance. Thus, Ex. 1068 is not a new argument or theory of invalidity.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner was not required to foresee every baseless argument Caltech
`
`might ultimately raise. See Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-01555, Paper No. 36 at 5 (Oct. 9, 2015) (“[A] petitioner
`
`legitimately may respond to arguments made in an opposition….a petitioner does
`
`not have to anticipate all possible arguments which a patent owner made present in
`
`an opposition on the merits.”).
`
`Caltech also argues that Ex. 1068 “lacks relevance” and “must be excluded
`
`as it is a completely new and untimely theory.” Mot. 3-4. Specifically, Caltech
`
`argues that Dr. Frey modifies Ping’s code in ways not presented in the Petition.
`
`Mot. 3. Caltech is mistaken. The Petition explained that:
`
`It would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill to
`
`change Ping’s generator Hd matrix such that not all columns had the
`
`same weight – e.g., setting some columns to weight 9 and others to
`
`weight 3, as taught by MacKay. This change would result in some
`
`information bits contributing to more outer LDPC parity bits than
`
`others, and would have made Ping’s outer LDPC code irregular.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Pet, 42 (emphasis added.) Dr. Frey’s simulations modified Ping’s Hd matrix such
`
`that “not all columns had the same weight.” Ex. 1065, ¶ 48 (“I created an Hd
`
`matrix with column weights of three or nine.”); ¶ 52 (“I [also] created an Hd matrix
`
`with column weights of four, five, or nine”). Contrary to Caltech’s assertions, Dr.
`
`Frey’s simulations are not a “newly proposed modification.” Rather, Dr. Frey’s
`
`simulations modify “Ping’s generator Hd matrix such that not all columns had the
`
`same weight” -- exactly as provided in the Petition.
`
`Caltech argues that Dr. Frey’s declaration (Ex. 1065) should be excluded
`
`because it includes “portions discussing experimental data and attorney created
`
`graphs/figures.” Mot. 4. But as discussed above, the data, graphs, and figures are
`
`properly in the record because they support arguments made in the Petition and
`
`rebut Caltech’s expert’s direct testimony. Therefore, the sections of Ex. 1065
`
`discussing these exhibits are proper.
`
`B.
`
`Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, 1072: Caltech’s
`
`Claim To Prejudice Should Be Rejected Because (1) The Board Is Well
`
`Suited To Assign The Proper Weight to Evidence, (2) Caltech Has Had
`
`Ample Opportunity To Respond, and (3) Caltech Can Still Respond In
`
`Its Sur-Replies And Oral Hearing
`
`Caltech argues that Exs. 1044-1049, 1057-1061, 1065, 1068, 1071, and 1072
`
`should be excluded as unduly prejudicial. Mot. 4. Caltech does not face any
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`legitimate prejudice, and there is no cause to exclude the challenged exhibits.
`
`First, the Board “sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well positioned to assign
`
`appropriate weight to the evidence without the need for formal exclusion.”
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00407, Paper No. 48 at 22 (July 20, 2015). Even if the evidence were likely to bias
`
`laypersons on a jury (which it is not), the need to exclude such evidence would not
`
`apply to experienced administrative judges. As the Board notes in Nichia Corp. v.
`
`Emcore Corp., “[t]here is a strong public policy for making all information filed in
`
`a non-jury, quasi-judicial administrative proceeding available to the public,
`
`especially in an inter partes review which determines the patentability of claims in
`
`an issued patent. It is better to have a complete record of the evidence submitted
`
`by the parties than to exclude particular pieces.” IPR2012-00005, Paper No. 68 at
`
`59 (Feb. 11, 2014).
`
`Second, Caltech cannot credibly claim prejudice when it has abstained from
`
`using evidentiary tools at its disposal. For example, rather than cross-examining
`
`Dr. Frey, Caltech seeks, instead, to avoid the merits of his arguments by excluding
`
`his entire declaration (Ex. 1065). Mot. 4-8. There is no basis to exclude Dr. Frey’s
`
`declaration when Dr. Frey was available for deposition, and Caltech elected not to
`
`cross-examine him.
`
`Finally, Caltech has been amply accommodated by the Board, which has
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`granted Caltech leave to file a sur-reply and to challenge the scope of deposition
`
`questions through a motion for sanctions. The nature of the IPR proceeding
`
`permits Petitioner (which has the burden to establish unpatentability), the last reply
`
`prior to the oral hearing. Caltech appears to suggest that it faces prejudice because
`
`it will not have the last word (despite having been granted a sur-reply).
`
`Nonetheless, Caltech may still address all these issues at oral hearing.
`
`For at least the reasons above, Petitioner respectfully submits that Caltech
`
`faces no “undue prejudice” and should be denied its motion to exclude the
`
`challenged exhibits.
`
`C. Caltech’s Insinuations Regarding The Veracity Of Dr. Davis’s
`
`Unavailability Are Baseless And Rebutted By Sworn Testimony
`
`In its efforts to distract from the merits of this case, Caltech resorts to a
`
`baseless ad hominem attack on Dr. Davis’s integrity. Mot. 6-8.
`
`As Dr. Davis explains in sworn testimony (Ex. 1073), he received the
`
`Fulbright Global Award. The Fulbright is a prestigious academic exchange
`
`program “designed to expand and strengthen relationships between the people of
`
`the United States and citizens of other nations” that requires participants to “give
`
`public talks, mentor students, and otherwise engage with the host community, in
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`addition to their primary research or teaching activities.”2 If Caltech disputes the
`
`authenticity of Dr. Davis’s award and corresponding obligations, it was free to
`
`cross-examine Dr. Davis on how his time was spent during the preparation of the
`
`reply briefs.
`
`D. Caltech Chose Not To Depose Dr. Frey And Faces No Prejudice
`
`Because Dr. Frey Agreed With Dr. Davis’s Testimony, Considered
`
`Caltech’s Criticisms, And Stood Available For Cross-Examination
`
`Caltech argues that Dr. Frey’s declaration (Ex. 1065) should be excluded
`
`because Caltech had no “meaningful opportunity” to cross-examine Dr. Frey and
`
`that it was prejudiced “because Dr. Frey has not addressed or considered Dr.
`
`Davis’s cross-examination testimony.” Mot. 6. Caltech’s arguments are baseless.
`
`First, Dr. Frey states unequivocally that he has “reviewed the Petition and
`
`declaration of Dr. Davis and agree[s] with their explanation of why the instituted
`
`claims are invalid.” Ex. 1065 ¶ 15. Caltech claims that Dr. Frey somehow did not
`
`consider its criticism of Dr. Davis. But Dr. Frey’s declaration specifically states
`
`that he reviewed Caltech’s POR, which purports to identify Dr. Davis’s supposed
`
`admissions, and this did not alter Dr. Frey’s opinion. Id. at ¶ 11.
`
`Caltech was free to depose Dr. Frey regarding the cross-examination
`
`
`2 https://awards.cies.org/content/fulbright-global-scholar-award. Ex. 1075.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`transcript of Dr. Davis and the arguments it put forth regarding Dr. Davis in its
`
`POR, but chose not to do so. Caltech abstained from using the evidentiary tools
`
`available to it, and cannot now claim that it is prejudiced by the evidence that it
`
`otherwise chose not to challenge. Additionally, any alleged prejudice from a
`
`change of experts has already been specifically addressed by the Board granting
`
`Caltech a sur-reply. Therefore, Caltech was not prejudiced.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 1074 Mirrors Caltech’s Own Supplemental Exhibit
`
`Caltech wrongly asserts that Ex. 1074 contains “extensive substantive
`
`arguments” and should be dismissed for lack of relevance and prejudice. Mot. 8.
`
`To the contrary, Ex. 1074 properly identifies the portions of Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`and Dr. Divsalar’s declarations which support Petitioner’s cross-examination.
`
`Moreover, if any party has been prejudiced, it is Petitioner, not Caltech.
`
`Unlike Petitioner’s Ex. 1074, Caltech’s own supplemental exhibit (Ex. 2037)
`
`contains extensive arguments and mischaracterizations. See e.g., Ex. 2037, 1
`
`(“questions regarding Exhibit 1044, a new exhibit created by Petitioner’s counsel
`
`and not disclosed until Dr. Mitzenmacher’s deposition”); 3 (“content not relied
`
`upon in petition materials”); 4 (“not disclosed until Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`deposition”); 5 (“Questions regarding modification to Divsalar RA code not
`
`presented in petition”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Caltech also mischaracterizes Petitioner’s opposition. Petitioner’s
`
`opposition did not “admit[] that Exhibit 1074 is a ‘detailed’ explanation,” as
`
`Caltech alleges. Instead, Petitioner’s opposition states that “[a]s detailed in Exhibit
`
`1074, Petitioner’s questions were entirely directed to topics addressed and opinions
`
`given in Dr. Divsalar’s and Dr. Mitzenmacher’s declarations.” In other words,
`
`Exhibit 1074 identifies a list of the topics addressed and opinions given in Dr.
`
`Divsalar’s and Dr. Mitzenmacher’s declarations to which Petitioner’s questions
`
`were directed.
`
`F.
`
`There Is No Cause To Exclude Ex. 1067 Because The Board Can
`
`Assign The Appropriate Weight To It
`
`Caltech argues that Ex. 1067 (a decision from Judge Pfaelzer in the case
`
`California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-
`
`07245-MRPJEM, 2015 WL 11089495 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015)) should be
`
`excluded. Mot. 9. Ex. 1067 is relevant to rebutting Caltech’s arguments regarding
`
`secondary considerations, which rest entirely on the incorrect premise that the
`
`DVB-S2 standard practices the claims. Reply 21-22. The Board is well suited to
`
`assign the proper weight to evidence and there is no cause to exclude Ex. 1067.
`
`G. Exs. 1006, 1019, 1024, 1029-1047, and 1057-1061 Are Properly In
`
`The Record For Consideration By The Board
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Caltech moves to exclude Exs. 1006, 1018, 1019, 1024, 1029-1047, and
`
`1057-1061 because “[t]hese exhibits are not cited in the petition or Petitioner’s
`
`reply and are therefore not relevant to any instituted grounds of review.”3 Mot. 10-
`
`11. Exs. 1019, 1029-1043 are all relevant to the publication dates of the Frey and
`
`Divsalar references.4 As the Board noted, “Divsalar is relevant to a claim in which
`
`the trial has been instituted, and therefore, so is Petitioner’s supplemental evidence
`
`directed to its status as prior art…we wish to consider the totality of evidence
`
`concerning the publication date.” Paper 27 at 3.
`
`Additionally, Exs. 1006, 1044-1047, 1057-1061 were originally included as
`
`part of declarations and transcripts in this case and Petitioner submits that they are
`
`relevant and should remain in order to maintain a complete record. Exs. 1006 and
`
`1024 were discussed in Dr. Davis’s declaration (Ex. 1004). Exs 1044-1047 were
`
`discussed in the deposition of Dr. Mitzenmacher (Ex. 2038). Exs. 1057-1061 were
`
`discussed in the deposition of Dr. Divsalar (Ex. 2039). Therefore, these exhibits
`
`are properly on the record.
`
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner agrees to withdraw Exhibit 1018 (U.S. Patent 4,271,520 to Coombes).
`
`4 In fact, the Board specifically noted that Exs. 1027-1041 are relevant as
`
`supplemental evidence. Paper 27 at 4.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`III. Conclusion
`
`For at least the reasons discussed above, Caltech’s motion to exclude should
`
`be denied.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`/Richard Goldenberg/
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg (Reg. No. 38,895)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey, “Comparison of
`constructions of irregular Gallager codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
`Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-54, 1999
`
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low Density Parity Check
`Codes with Semi-random Parity Check Matrix.” Electron. Letters,
`Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-39, 1999
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (“Davis Declaration”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Gallager, R., Low-Density Parity-Check Codes, Monograph, M.I.T.
`Press, 1963
`
`Berrou et al., “Near Shannon Limit Error-Correcting Coding and
`Decoding: Turbo-Codes," ICC ’93, Technical Program, Conference
`Record 1064, Geneva 1993
`
`Benedetto, S. et al., Serial Concatenation of Block and
`Convolutional Codes, 32.10 Electronics Letters 887-8, 1996
`
`1008
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ’97, 1997
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved
`Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” STOC ’98, pp. 249-58, published
`in 1998
`
`Replacement copy of Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular
`Turbocodes,” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and
`Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on or before March 20,
`2000
`
`1011
`
`Final Written Decision, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016)
`
`1012
`
`Certificate of Correction, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (Sept. 2, 2008)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Order, California Institute of Technology v.
`Hughes Communications Inc., No. 13-cv-7245 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Decision on Institution, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015)
`
`1015
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`MacKay, D. J. C, and Neal, R. M. “Near Shannon Limit
`Performance of Low Density Parity Check Codes,” Electronics
`Letters, vol. 32, pp. 1645-46, 1996
`
`Replacement copy of D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece,
`“Coding theorems for "turbo-like" codes,” Proc. 36th Allerton Conf.
`on Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, pp. 201-9,
`September 1998
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520 (1981)
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh Concerning the “Proceedings,
`36th Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and
`Computing” Reference
`
`Chris Heegard and Stephen B. Wicker, Turbo Coding, pp. 12-14,
`1999
`
`George C. Clark, Jr. and J. Bibb Cain, Error-Correction Coding for
`Digital Communications, pp. 6, 229, 1938
`
`Pfister, H. and Siegel, P., “The Serial Concatenation of Rate-1 Codes
`Through Uniform Random Interleavers,” 37th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on
`or before September 24, 1999
`
`1023
`
`Replacement copy of Declaration of Paul H. Siegel (“Siegel
`Declaration”)
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`Kschischang, F.R., and Frey, B.J., “Iterative decoding of compound
`codes by probability propagation in graphical models,” IEEE
`Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.
`219-230, 1998
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Declaration Of Richard Goldenberg In Support Of Unopposed
`Motions To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(c)
`
`Declaration Of Jonathan Barbee In Support Of Unopposed Motions
`To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`Declaration of James M. Dowd in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`OCLC Record of Proceedings of the 36th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 36th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published by June 3, 1999
`
`Declaration of Library Expert Theodore A. Fons
`
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury (an employee in the Original
`Cataloging Unit of the Cornell University Library)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Bruce Hajek (a six-time co-chair of the Allerton
`Conference, including the 36th Allerton Conference and the 37th
`Allerton Conference)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Tamer Basar (a six-time co-chair of the Allerton
`Conference, including the 36th Allerton Conference)
`
`Affidavit from Dr. Ramavarapu Sreenivas (a two-time co-chair of
`the Allerton Conference, including the 37th Allerton Conference)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1036
`
`Description
`A Screen Capture of an Archived Version of the Website for the 37th
`Annual Allerton Conference, dated September 9, 1999
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`A Purchase Order for the 37th Allerton Conference Proceedings,
`dated December 8, 1999
`
`A Bill of Lading for the 37th Annual Allerton Conference
`Proceedings, with a ship date of February 21, 2000
`
`An Excerpt from the Deposition of Dr. Steven Wicker (Case No.
`2:13-cv-07245)
`
`An Excerpt from the Deposition of Dr. Rüdiger Urbanke (Case No.
`2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1041
`
`Jafar A. Alzubi, Omar A. Alzubi, and Thomas M. Chen, Forward
`Error Correction Based on Algebraic-Geometric Theory (2014)
`1042 MARC Record of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 37th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published in 1999
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`BEACON Record of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference on
`Communication, Control and Computing, indicating the 37th
`Allerton Conference Proceeding was published in 1999
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Fig. 2 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,116,710
`
`Block Diagram of Accumulator
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Luby98 Code 14
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Ping
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by MacKay Profile 93y
`
`Confidential IRA.cpp with metadata
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1051
`
`Description
`Confidential IRA.h with metadata
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential IRAsimu.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential GetInter.cpp with metadata
`
`Confidential Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin (Case No.
`16-cv-3714)
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Tanner Graph for Code Described by Divsalar (q=5)
`
`Tanner Graph for IRA Code
`
`Systematic Version of Divsalar Figure 3
`
`Divsalar Figure 3 and Frey Figure 1
`
`D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, J. Thorpe, C. Jones, “Constructing LDPC
`Codes from Simple Loop-Free Encoding Modules” IEEE (2005)
`
` Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin [unredacted]
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin [redacted]
`
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Declaration of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Brendan Frey
`
`California Institute of Technology v. Hughes Communications Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, 2015 WL 11089495 (C.D. Cal. May
`5, 2015)
`
`Simulation of Regular and Irregular Divsalar Codes
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`Exhibit
`1069
`
`Protective Order
`
`Description
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`
`
`Redline against Board’s Default Protective Order
`
`Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described in Ping
`
`Block Diagram of Implementation of Code Described in Ping
`
`Declaration of James A. Davis, Ph.D.
`
`Relevance of Deposition Questions Summary
`
`Fulbright Global Award Description
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 11, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
`
`following:
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
` List of Exhibits
`
` Exhibit 1075
`
`was served via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`/Kelvin Chan/
`
`Kelvin Chan (Reg. No. 71,433)
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
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
