`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`K/S HIMPP,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00781
`Patent 8,654,999
`_________________
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, III Holdings 4, LLC (“Patent Owner”) moves
`
`to exclude certain evidence, discussed below, that Petitioner submitted in this
`
`proceeding. The Board should grant the Patent Owner Motion to Exclude for the
`
`reasons set forth below. Patent Owner timely filed and served Petitioner with
`
`objections to the exhibits accompanying the Petition on August 10, 2017. Paper 10.
`
`II. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1009 – German patent publication
`DE19542961 (“DE961”)
`
`Patent Office Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) requires “a translation of the
`
`document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation
`
`must be filed with the document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). The Patent Office Rules
`
`further state that “[e]vidence that is not taken, sought, or filed in accordance with
`
`this subpart is not admissible.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) (emphasis added). As
`
`explained below, the “Verification” included with Exhibit 1009 is not “an affidavit
`
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation” that is required by § 42.63(b). Without
`
`the required affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation, Patent Owner and
`
`the Board are left guessing as to the substance of the foreign language document.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board apply 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61(a) and exclude the foreign language document. See Square, Inc. v. REM
`
`Holdings 3, LLC, IPR2014-00312, Paper No. 58 (PTAB July 7, 2015) (excluding
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`exhibit because translation was not accompanied by an affidavit as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(b)).
`
`Exhibit 1009 must be excluded because the “Verification” accompanying the
`
`Exhibit it fails to meet the requirements for an affidavit under the Patent Office’s
`
`rules. Specifically, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) states that: “Uncompelled direct testimony
`
`must be submitted in the form of an affidavit.” Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 42.2
`
`states that: “Affidavit means affidavit or declaration under § 1.68 of this chapter. A
`
`transcript of an ex parte deposition or a declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746 may be
`
`used as an affidavit.” Petitioner’s exhibit fails to comply with the requirements
`
`contained in the rules and statute.
`
`Exhibit 1009 does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. Specifically, § 1.68
`
`requires that:
`
`Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and
`
`which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under
`
`oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration
`
`may be used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the
`
`declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false
`
`statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the
`
`application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth
`
`in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the
`
`declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68. The “Verification included in Exhibit 1009 merely states “To the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief, the attached is a true, accurate and complete
`
`English translation of the above-referenced German document.” (Ex. 1009 at 10).
`
`The “Verification” lacks all of the other statements required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`Exhibit 1009 also fails to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Specifically,
`
`§ 1746 requires that declarations signed within the United States must be
`
`“subscribed by [the declarant], as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in
`
`substantially the following form: … (2) If executed within the United States, its
`
`territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state)
`
`under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
`
`(Signature)’.” 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The “Verification” of Exhibit 1009, which merely
`
`states “To the best of my knowledge and belief, the attached is a true, accurate and
`
`complete English translation of the above-referenced German document” (Ex.
`
`1009 at 10), fails to satisfy the requirement that the declaration be subscribed as
`
`true under penalty of perjury in substantially the same form as provided by the
`
`statute.
`
`Furthermore, because the “Verification” of Exhibit 1009 does not qualify as
`
`an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a), Exhibit 1009 must be excluded under FRE
`
`901 because it is not properly authenticated, and Petitioner has not presented any
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence that the English language portions of the exhibit are authentic. Further,
`
`the exhibit is not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`III. The Board Should Exclude Exhibit 1011 – Michael Valente, “Guideline
`for Audiologic Management of the Adult Patient (“Valente”) and
`Exhibit 1012 – Good Practice Guidance for Adult Hearing Aid Fittings
`and Services – Background to the Document and Consultation (“Good
`Practice Guidance”)
`
`The Board should exclude Valente (Ex. 1011) and Good Practice Guidance
`
`(Ex. 1012) as unauthenticated, hearsay, and irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902, 801,
`
`802, 401, 402. In order “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
`
`identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901. Petitioner failed to authenticate the Valente Document and the Good Practice
`
`Guidance Document as documents that were publicly available as of the priority
`
`date.
`
`The Valente Document bears only a copyright date of 2016, which is
`
`unauthenticated by any evidence that Petitioner has introduced, and a further date
`
`of “12/14/2016”. The Good Practice Guidance Document references a November
`
`2004 date, which is also unauthenticated by any evidence that Petitioner has
`
`introduced. The mere appearance of a date, even a copyright date, on a document is
`
`insufficient to establish the date of when the document was available to the public.
`
`See, e.g., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., Case IPR2014-01347,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 25 at 5-12 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2016) (granting patent owner’s motion to exclude
`
`prior art for lack of authentication). The dates by themselves are insufficient, as a
`
`matter of law, to establish that the Valente Document or the Good Practice
`
`Guidance Document qualify as a printed publication, let alone that they were
`
`accessible to the public prior to the 2010 priority date of the challenged patent. See,
`
`e.g., TRW Automotive, Case IPR2014-01347, Paper 25 at 5-12 (“Although [a]
`
`copyright notice is probative that IEEE owns a copyright to the article, it is not
`
`probative that the article was ever published by IEEE or anyone else.”); Stryker
`
`Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc., Case IPR2015-00677, Paper 15 at 18-19
`
`(PTAB Sept. 2, 2015); In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
`
`iOnROAD Ltd. v. Mobileye Techs. Ltd., Case IPR2013-00227, Paper 18 at 3, 16
`
`(PTAB Aug. 27, 2013) (stating that a copyright date does not mean that a reference
`
`was published). Accordingly, the Board should exclude Exhibits 1011 and 1012
`
`because they were not properly authenticated.
`
`Second, the date on the Good Practice Guidance Document is itself
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Petitioner attempts to rely on the Good Practice Guidance
`
`Document date for a hearsay purpose, i.e., to prove the truth of the contention that
`
`the document was publicly accessible as of 2010. Fed. R. Evid. 801 (hearsay is an
`
`out-of-court statement offered to prove truth of the matter asserted); Stryker, Case
`
`IPR2015-00677, Paper 15 at 18-19; In re Lister, 583 F.3d at 1316-17. No hearsay
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`exception applies. Therefore, the Good Practice Guidance Document date is
`
`hearsay under FRE 801, and is inadmissible under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`Third, the Valente Document and the Good Practice Guidance Document
`
`should be excluded as irrelevant, because Petitioner failed to establish each was
`
`available as prior art. Evidence is relevant if (1) it has any tendency to make a fact
`
`more or less probably than it would be without the evidence, and (2) the fact is of
`
`consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. A Petitioner can
`
`challenge the validity of a patent based only on prior art patents and printed
`
`publications. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that a
`
`document is a “printed publication” by demonstrating that the document was
`
`publicly accessible to persons concerned with the prior art to which the document
`
`relates. ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015- 00716, Paper 13
`
`at 8, 15-17 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2015).
`
`As discussed above, the Valente Document and the Good Practice Guidance
`
`Document are each unauthenticated, inadmissible hearsay, and have not been
`
`shown to be prior art. Accordingly, the Valente Document and the Good Practice
`
`Guidance Document cannot be relevant in determining patentability of the ’999
`
`Patent claims. Allowing the Petitioner to rely on the Valente Document and the
`
`Good Practice Guidance Document as prior art would be unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner under FRE 403, given that each is unauthenticated, the purported
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`publication dates are hearsay, and the documents are irrelevant. For all of the
`
`reasons discussed above, the Board should exclude exhibits 1011 and 1012.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Henry A. Petri, Jr./
`Henry A. Petri Jr., Reg. No. 33,063
`James P. Murphy, Reg. No. 55,474
`Polsinelli, PC
`1000 Louisiana Street, 53rd Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tele: (713) 374-1631
`Fax: (713) 374-1601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on March 20, 2018, via email
`
`directed to the following counsel of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`sam.ha@wilmerhale.com
`Haixia Lin
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`Christopher R. O’Brien
`christopher.obrien@wilmerhale.com
`Vera A Shmidt
`Vera.Shmidt@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`/Sabrina Alaniz/
`Sabrina Alaniz
`POLSINELLI PC
`1000 Louisiana, Fifty-Third Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tele: (713) 374-1600
`Fax: (713) 374-1601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`