`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S. A.1
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-1799
`PATENT 8,199,747
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to exclude strictly complies with the requirements of
`42.64(c), which states:
`A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.
`The motion must identify the objections in the record in order and must
`explain the objections. The motion may be filed without prior
`authorization from the Board.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Consistent with this section, Patent Owner’s motion (1)
`
`identifies the objections in the record in order and (2) explains the objections.
`
`Petitioner’s claim that Patent Owner failed to explain the objections is simply false.
`
`As explained in the motion, Petitioner spent nearly the entire deposition posing
`
`questions outside the scope of Mr. Easttom’s declaration. The basis for each
`
`objection is that it exceeds the scope of Mr. Easttom’s declaration. The meaning of
`
`this objection is self-evident – the questions posed by Petitioner exceeded what was
`
`discussed in Mr. Easttom’s declaration. Any further explanation would require
`
`Patent Owner to prove a negative by proving what is not in Mr. Easttom’s
`
`declaration, a fruitless exercise.
`
`
`
`Petitioner complains that Patent Owner’s motion does not identify where in
`
`the record the evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by Petitioner. Not
`
`knowing if Petitioner would attempt to rely on deposition testimony outside the
`
`scope of Mr. Easttom’s declaration in trial exhibits or any other later-filed
`
`documents, Patent Owner timely filed its motion to exclude to preserve its
`
`objections. While section 42.64(c) does not, on its face, require a motion to exclude
`
`2
`
`
`
`to identify where in the record the objectionable evidence was relied upon by the
`
`opponent (a requirement mentioned only by the practice guide), it does require a
`
`timely motion to exclude to preserve any objection. Under the scheduling order,
`
`Patent Owner’s deadline to file a motion to exclude was September 28.
`
`
`
`The updated practice guide recognizes that the Board generally waits until
`
`after the oral hearing, when it reviews the record in its entirety, to decide the merits
`
`of any motions to exclude. Consistent with this guideline, Patent Owner does not
`
`oppose delaying a decision on its motion to exclude until after all exhibits and
`
`documents have been filed. Patent owner requests, however, the right to supplement
`
`its motion to exclude in the event Petitioner later attempts to rely on deposition
`
`testimony outside the scope of Mr. Easttom’s declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Date: October 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), we certify that we served an electronic copy
`
`of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107(a) along with any accompanying exhibits via the Patent Review Processing
`
`System (PRPS) to Petitioner’s counsel of record at the following address:
`
`PETITIONER LEAD COUNSEL:
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.
`Washington, DC, 20005
`Telephone: 202.551.1990
`Fax: 202.551.1705
`Email: PH-Samsung-Uniloc-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Date: October 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 64,783
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 51,970
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
