Filed on behalf of K/S HIMPP
`By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`Haixia Lin, Reg. No. 61,318
`Christopher R. O’Brien, Reg. No. 63,208
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Email:
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`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
`Case IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`______________________
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`ActiveUS 167428879
`
`
`By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`Haixia Lin, Reg. No. 61,318
`Christopher R. O’Brien, Reg. No. 63,208
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Email:
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`Haixia.Lin@wilmerhale.com
`Christopher.O’Brien@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`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
`Case IPR2017-00782
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`______________________
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`ActiveUS 167428879
`
`
`
`1
`
`May 1, 2018
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`IPR2017-00781, IPR2017-00782
`
`III HOLDINGS 4, LLC
`
`v.
`
`K/S HIMPP
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,654,999
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`2
`
`•Conclusion
`
`•Issues Raised by Patent Owner (PO)
`
`•The Instituted Combinations
`
`•Overview of US8,654,999 (the ’999 Patent)
`
`Overview
`
`
`
`3
`
`where the record in IPR2017-00782 differs in substance, it will be cited separately
`*Citations to the record correspond to IPR2017-00781;
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001*
`
`The ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petition at 6-7, citing ’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 4:60-5:2, 6:42-52, 8:55-58
`
`correction levels in the form of ‘hearing correction filters.’”
`
`•“[P]urportedinvention…is the application of multiple, incremental
`
`Petition at 6, citing ’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 2:26-39
`
`compensated hearing level.”
`[] ease a user’s transition from an uncompensated hearing level to a fully-
`•“[I]ncrementalor progressive application of hearing adjustments over time
`
`Petition at 6, citing ’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 1:58-67
`
`their hearing is restored to a normal level after years of hearing loss.”
`
`•“[F]irst-time hearing aid users may experience psychological distress when
`
`The ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 1
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`follow the first one in the sequence of
`“the second one being designated to
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`“a second one of the sequence of
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`“a first one of a sequence of
`
`The ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 10
`
`’
`
`l
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 6
`
`The ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`-00781 Institution Decision at 38
`
`on the following grounds in IPR2017-00781:
`The Board found that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`Board’s Decision on Institution
`
`
`
`8
`
`-00782 Institution Decision at 33
`
`on the following grounds in IPR2017-00782:
`The Board found that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`
`Board’s Decision on Institution
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Reply at 2; see also Petition at 24-25; Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Abstract, Fig. 2, 3:32-36, 3:42-4:15, 4:25-67
`
`APP.
`compensation for the user’s hearing loss increases over time by increasing
`Fichtl discloses executing an acclimatization algorithm where the amount of
`
`Petitioner Reply at 9-10, citing Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:44-47; see also Petition at 22, 26-27
`
`treble or noise canceling.’”
`“APP may be volume, ‘but may also be something else, as, for example,
`
`Petition at 22; see also Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:23-48, Abstract, Fig. 1, 13:36-37, 13:45-14:1
`
`acoustic signals to correct for a user’s hearing loss.”
`Fichtl discloses audio processing parameters (APP) that are “used…to shape
`Applied Prior Art: Fichtl
`
`
`
`10
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petition at 25; Petitioner Reply at 3
`
`Petitioner Reply at 2, citing Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2, 3:55-57, 3:66-4:7, 4:31-36, 4:41-53; see also Petition at 25
`
`in memory.”
`time the hearing aid is turned on, APP is set to the last value for X as stored
`then held constant in memory while the hearing aid is off, such that each
`“[A]n intermediate value X is slowly increased while the hearing aid is on,
`Applied Prior Art: Fichtl
`
`
`
`11
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petition at 25; Petitioner Reply at 3
`
`Petitioner Reply at 3-4; see also Petition at 25-26; Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2, 3:42-4:67
`
`tPOV.”
`time the hearing aid is turned on until it reaches [the target power-on value]
`a sequence of replacement power-on values (e.g., rPOV1, RPOV2,…) each
`“APP starts at an initial power-on value (iPOV)….[and] increases to each of
`Applied Prior Art: Fichtl
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Reply at 8-10
`
`(cid:3381)“Fichtl discloses ‘hearing correction filters’ even under [PO]’s
`
`overly narrow interpretation”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 4-8
`
`(cid:3381)“[PO] adopts an overly narrow interpretation of ‘hearing
`
`correction filter’”
`
`correction filter”
`•PO asserts that Fichtl fails to disclose a “hearing
`
`First Issue Raised by PO –Hearing Correction Filter
`
`
`
`13
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 1
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Claim 1
`
`
`
`14
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 10
`
`’
`
`l
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 6
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Claims 6 and 10
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Response at 14
`
`of filters”
`construction should be narrowed to require “a collection
`its argument from its preliminary response that the
`•PO disagrees with the Board’s construction, reiterating
`
`Decision Institution at 11
`
`(cid:3381)“a filterthat is applied by a processor within a hearing aid to
`
`profile”
`provided to the user by application of the hearing aid
`a hearing aid profile to reduce the level of correction
`
`correction filter”:
`•Board adopted the following construction for “hearing
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Claim Construction
`
`
`
`16
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 2:65-66
`
`(cid:3381)“the term ‘hearing correction filter’ refers to a collection of
`
`filters for hearing aid 202”
`
`Patent Owner Response at 14, citing ’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 2:65-66
`
`filters…”
`definition that ‘hearing correction filter’ is a collection of
`•PO alleges “[t]he specification provides a clear
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Claim Construction
`
`
`
`17
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 2:65-3:7; see also Petitioner Reply at 5-6, Institution Decision at 9
`
`uncompensated to corrected hearing.”
`the user's hearing loss to ease the user's transition from
`over a period of timeto provide incremental corrections for
`correction adjustments designed to be applied in a sequence
`hearing correction filters may include a series of hearing
`by application of the hearing aid profile. The collection of
`profile to reduce the level of correction provided to the user
`processor 210 within hearing aid 202 to a hearing aid
`collection of filters for hearing aid 202, which are applied by
`
`(cid:3381)“As used herein, the term ‘hearing correction filter’ refers to a
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Specification of ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`18
`
`Institution Decision at 10
`
`(cid:3381)“Here, the patent describes individual hearing correction filters
`
`sequence.”
`that are part of a collection and are individually applied in
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 3:7-15; Institution Decision at 9-10
`
`user.”
`applied to provide the desired hearing correction for the
`sequence is complete and the hearing aid profile is fully
`applied to) the hearing aid profile to some degree, until the
`the correction provided by (decreases the attenuation
`subsequent hearing correction filter in the sequence increases
`the adjustment provided by hearing aid 202. Each of
`the hearing aid profile by a pre-determined amount, limiting
`(cid:3381)“In such an instance, a first hearing correction filter attenuates
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Specification of ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`19
`
`Institution Decision at 10
`
`parameters.”
`hearing correction filter cannot adjust multiple coefficients or
`a single coefficient or parameter such that an individual
`argument that an individual filter must be limited to adjusting
`Owner does not advance any persuasive evidence or
`composed of multiple coefficients or parameters….Patent
`(cid:3381)“This description on its face describes a single filter that is
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 5:42-48; Institution Decision at 10
`
`impairment.”
`sounds to modulate them to compensate for the user’s hearing
`of the hearing aid to alter various characteristics of the
`parameters, or other settings that are applied by a processor
`aid profile is composed of a plurality of coefficients,
`used to achieve the correction lines and ultimately the hearing
`
`(cid:3381)“Further, it should be understood that the filter or correction
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Specification of ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner Response at 27
`
`the signal in different ways.”
`profile for adjusting a signal impacts different frequencies of
`(cid:3381)“Application of [a hearing correction filter] to a hearing aid
`
`Patent Owner Response at 26, citing ’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 4:35-39
`
`(cid:3381)“[T]he ’999 patent explicitly recites that applying [a hearing
`
`modulated signal.”
`providing less of an enhancement to other frequencies’ of the
`‘selected frequencies to the desired hearing level while
`correction filter] to a hearing aid profile for adjusting
`
`Patent Owner Response at 25-26
`
`underlying audio signal…”
`volume does not change frequency characteristicsof the
`correction filter] for a hearing aid profile because changing a
`
`(cid:3381)“Adjusting a volume is not the same as applying [a hearing
`
`•PO asserts:
`Hearing Correction Filter –PO Assertions
`
`
`
`21
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 48:17-22; Petitioner Reply at 6-7
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –PO Expert Assertions
`
`
`
`22
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 21:8-25; Petitioner Reply at 7
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –PO Expert Assertions
`
`
`
`23
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 4:35-44; Petitioner Reply at 6-7
`
`evenly.”
`correction across the entire range of frequencies substantially
`selected hearing aid profile to incrementally adjust the hearing
`correction could dampen or otherwise apply filters to the
`example, in one particular instance, the incremental hearing
`other incremental hearing corrections could be used. For
`to other frequencies. However, it should be understood that
`the desired hearing level while providing less of an enhancement
`incremental hearing corrections adjust selected frequencies to
`112, 114, 116, and 118 appear to indicate that the
`
`(cid:3381)“[I]n the illustrated example, the hearing sensitivity lines 110,
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Specification of ’999 Patent
`
`
`
`24
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 48:24-49:3; Petitioner Reply at 8
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –PO Expert Assertions
`
`
`
`25
`
`Patent Owner Response at 27
`
`frequencies of the signal.”
`adjusting volume is adjusting the amplitude across all
`hearing device. Exh. 2003, Brown Dec. at ¶ 49. Rather
`different portions of the underlying audio signal of the
`event disclosed by Fichtl does not provide varying effects on
`(cid:3381)“[A]djustinga volume at any given disjointed volume adjusting
`
`Patent Owner Response at 25-26
`
`involve a ‘collection of filters.’”
`underlying audio signal, and changing volumes does not
`volume does not change frequency characteristics of the
`correction filter]for a hearing aid profile because changing a
`
`(cid:3381)“Adjusting a volume is not the same as applying [a hearing
`
`•PO asserts:
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –PO Assertions
`
`
`
`26
`
`across the entire range of frequencies substantially evenly.”
`hearing aid profile to incrementally adjust the hearing correction
`correction could dampen or otherwise apply filters to the selected
`(cid:3381)“For example, in one particular instance, the incremental hearing
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001 at 4:40-44; Petitioner Reply at 8-9
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 48:24-49:3; Petitioner Reply at 8
`
`Patent Owner Response at 27
`
`(cid:3381)“[A]djustingvolume is adjusting the amplitude across all
`
`frequencies of the signal.”
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Volume
`
`
`
`27
`
`Atlas Tr., Ex. 2005 at 42:3-10; Petitioner Reply at 9
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Volume
`
`
`
`28
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 22:2-23:8; Petitioner Reply at 9
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Volume
`
`
`
`29
`
`Patent Owner Response at 29
`
`an APP value.”
`filters, but instead, as described in Fichtl, will be adjusted via
`adjusting treble takes place without using a collection of
`
`(cid:3381)PO asserts: “One of ordinary skill in the art understands that
`
`Petitioner Reply at 9-10, citing Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:44-47; see also Petition at 22, 26-27
`
`(cid:3381)“APP may be volume ‘but may also be something else, as, for
`
`example, treble or noise canceling.’”
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Treble
`
`
`
`30
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 54:24-55:8; Petitioner Reply at 10
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 20:11-16; Petitioner Reply at 10
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Treble
`
`
`
`31
`
`Atlas Tr., Ex. 2005 at 87:12-23; Petitioner Reply at 10
`
`Patent Owner Response at 29
`
`aid profile, and is also adjusted via an APP value.”
`applied to a signal before the signal is provided to a hearing
`
`(cid:3381)“Noise cancellation is a pre-processing technique that is
`
`Hearing Correction Filter –Noise Cancellation
`
`
`
`32
`
`(cid:3381)“Fichtl discloses a ‘sequence of incremental hearing correction
`
`filters’ even under [PO]’s overly narrow interpretation”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 11-13
`
`Petitioner Reply at 10-11
`
`(cid:3381)“[PO] adopts an overly narrow interpretation of a ‘sequence
`
`of incremental hearing correction filters’”
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`•PO asserts that Fichtl fails to disclose a “sequence of
`
`Second Issue Raised by PO –Sequence
`
`
`
`33
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 1
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 10
`
`’
`
`l
`
`Sequence –Claims 1 and 10
`
`
`
`34
`
`Patent Owner Response at 32
`
`sequentially.”
`are not predictable, and are not designated to be applied
`(cid:3381)“[T]he first and second APPsare not determined in advance,
`
`Patent Owner Response at 32
`
`order of subsequent adjustments.”
`person of ordinary skill in the art to determine or predict the
`
`(cid:3381)“[T]here is no teaching or suggestion in Fichtl that allows a
`
`Patent Owner Response at 31
`
`(cid:3381)“The progression of a sequence is predicable [sic] from the first
`
`step to the next in the sequence.”
`
`•PO asserts:
`
`Sequence –PO Assertions
`
`
`
`35
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 61:15-17; Petitioner Reply at 10-11
`
`Petitioner Reply at 10
`Webster’s New College Dictionary 2007, Ex. 1017 at 1308;
`
`Sequence –Definition
`
`
`
`36
`
`Patent Owner Response at 33
`
`correction filters] to the hearing device.”
`hearing and not sequentially applying incremental [hearing
`the user’s desired levels to compensate for a user’s loss of
`device gradually over time based on a running average of
`combination, teaches, at best, adjustinga volume of a hearing
`
`(cid:3381)“[A] person of skill in the art would understand that Fichtl in
`
`•PO asserts:
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`37
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 60:2-25; Petitioner Reply at 11
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 11
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`38
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 11-12
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 61:1-11; Petitioner Reply at 11-12
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`39
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 12
`
`Patent Owner Response at 21-22
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:42-53; Petitioner Reply at 12;
`
`initial power-on value iPOV.”
`parameter APP is set to the
`The audio-processing
`the non-volatile memory7.
`on-value iPOVis read from
`device1. The initial power-
`switches on the hearing
`hearing device user 10
`APP….At time ‘B’, the
`processing parameter
`iPOVfor the audio
`an initial power-on value
`“At time ‘A’, a fitter programs
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`40
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 12
`
`Patent Owner Response at 22
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:66-4:7; Petitioner Reply at 12;
`
`previously stored power-on-value.”
`processing parameter APP is set to the
`on the hearing device 1. The audio
`the hearing device user 10 switches
`power-on-value rPOV1. At time ‘G’,
`therefore the first replacement
`the non-volatile memory 7 is
`intermediate value X lastly stored to
`next power-on value. The
`the non-volatile memory 7 to be the
`stored frequently (e.g. every hour) in
`1. The intermediate value X is now
`10 switches off the hearing device
`“At time ‘F’, the hearing device user
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`41
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 66:7-14; Petitioner Reply at 12
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 12
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`42
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 5:11-16; Petition at 29-31; Petitioner Reply at 12-13
`
`hearing device user 10.”
`the audio processing parameter APP was adjusted by the
`line representing intermediate value X is independent of how
`which is known in the state of the art. The inclination of the
`algorithm which does not take into account user inputs and
`(cid:3381)“FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a linear acclimatization
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`43
`
`-00782 Patent Owner Response at 29, n. 6
`
`Petitioner’s application of Fichtl to the claims.”
`and second hearing correction filter [sic] even under the
`stored value. Therefore, there is no way to generate the first
`not possible in Fichtl, as the algorithm is based on a single
`correction filter and a second hearing correction filter.’ This is
`hearing correction filters…including at least a first hearing
`
`(cid:3381)“Claim 10 requires ‘generating a sequence of incremental
`
`•PO asserts:
`
`Sequence –PO Assertions
`
`
`
`44
`
`Atlas Tr., Ex. 2105 at 125:7-17; -00782 Petitioner Reply at 11, n. 2
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1103 at 3:44-47; -00782 Petitioner Reply at 11, n. 2
`
`canceling.”
`may also be something else, as, for example, treble or noise
`(cid:3381)“The audio processing parameter APP is typically volume but
`
`Sequence –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`45
`
`Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`(cid:3381)“Fichtl discloses ‘the second [incremental hearing correction
`
`interpretation”
`correction filter]’ even under [PO]’s overly narrow
`filter] designated to follow the first [incremental hearing
`
`Petitioner Reply at 13
`
`(cid:3381)“[PO] adopts an overly narrow interpretation of ‘the second
`
`follow the first [incremental hearing correction filter]’”
`[incremental hearing correction filter] being designated to
`
`to follow the first [incremental hearing correction filter]”
`[incremental hearing correction filter] being designated
`•PO asserts that Fichtl fails to disclose “the second
`
`Third Issue Raised by PO –Designated to Follow
`
`
`
`46
`
`’999 patent, Ex. 1001, claim 1
`
`followthe first one”
`“the second one being designated to
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`“a second one of the sequence of
`
`incremental hearing correction filters”
`“a first one of a sequence of
`
`Designated to Follow –Claim 1
`
`
`
`47
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 65:25-66:5; Petitioner Reply at 13
`
`Patent Owner Response at 32
`
`(cid:3381)“[T]he first and second APPsare not determined in advance,
`
`sequentially.”
`are not predictable, and are not designated to be applied
`
`Patent Owner Response at 31
`
`(cid:3381)“Fichtl does not even teach a set of designatedvolumes with
`
`volume.”
`one adjustment in volume following another adjustment in
`
`Designated to Follow –PO and PO Expert Assertions
`
`•PO asserts:
`
`
`
`48
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 63:2-4; Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 12, 14
`
`Designated to Follow –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`49
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`Patent Owner Response at 22
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at 3:66-4:7; Petitioner Reply at 14;
`
`previously stored power-on-value.”
`processing parameter APP is set to the
`on the hearing device 1. The audio
`the hearing device user 10 switches
`power-on-value rPOV1. At time ‘G’,
`therefore the first replacement
`the non-volatile memory 7 is
`intermediate value X lastly stored to
`next power-on value. The
`the non-volatile memory 7 to be the
`stored frequently (e.g. every hour) in
`1. The intermediate value X is now
`10 switches off the hearing device
`“At time ‘F’, the hearing device user
`
`Designated to Follow –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`50
`
`Brown Tr., Ex. 1016 at 66:7-14; Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`Fichtl, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2; Petitioner Reply at 14
`
`Designated to Follow –Fichtl’s Disclosures
`
`
`
`51
`
`Petitioner Opposition to Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 1-2; Exs. 1015, 1018
`
`(cid:3381)“In response, Petitioner timely served supplemental evidence on Patent
`
`Owner on August 24, 2017 curing those objections.”
`
`objection.’” 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`timely served may respond to the objection by serving
`
`•“[T]hen, ‘[t]he party relying on evidence to which an objection is
`
`Petitioner Opposition to Patent Owners Motion to Exclude at 1
`(cid:3381)“Patent Owner filed its Objection to Exhibit 1009 on August 10, 2017”
`
`supplemental evidence,’” 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(2)
`with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of
`•“First an ‘objection must identify the grounds for the objection
`PO Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`52
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 3
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 2
`
`referenced German document.”
`accurate and complete English translation of the above-
`the best of my knowledge and belief, the attached is a true,
`(cid:3381)“The Verification included in Exhibit 1009 merely states ‘To
`rules….Exhibit 1009 does not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.68.”
`requirements for an affidavit under the Patent Office’s
`accompanying the Exhibit it [sic] fails to meet the
`
`(cid:3381)“Exhibit 1009 must be excluded because the ‘Verification’
`
`•PO alleges:
`PO Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`53
`
`Petitioner Opposition to Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 3
`
`insufficient in curing those original objections.”
`1015 at all, nor even alleges that Exhibit 1015 is
`•PO Motion to Exclude “neither addresses Exhibit
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.68.
`42.63(b) by including a declaration satisfying the
`•Ex. 1015 satisfies the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`Exhibit 1015 Submitted as Supplemental Evidence
`
`Petitioner Opposition to Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 2-3; Ex. 1015
`
`
`
`54
`
`Petitioner Opposition to Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 2-3
`Exhibit 1015 at 10;
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude at 3
`Exhibit 1009 at 10;
`
`PO Reply to Petitioner Opposition to PO Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Haixia Lin/
`Haixia Lin
`Reg. No. 61,318
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`ActiveUS 167428879
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00781, IPR2017-00782
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 25, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument to be served electronically via
`
`e-mail to the following counsels of record for Patent Owner at the following email
`
`addresses:
`
`Henry A. Petri, Jr., (Lead Counsel Reg. No. 33,063)
`hpetri@polsinelli.com
`
`James P. Murphy (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 55,474)
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`Margaux A. Savee (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 62,940)
`msavee@polsinelli.com
`
`Tim R. Seeley (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 53,575)
`tims@intven.com
`
`Russ Rigby (Back-up Counsel Reg. No. 50,267)
`rrigby@intven.com
`
`/Haixia Lin/
`Haixia Lin
`Reg. No. 61,318
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`ActiveUS 167428879
`
`
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
