UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Filed: September 11, 2019
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`PROPOSED DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`Attached hereto are Patent Owner’s objections to Google’s proposed
`
`demonstratives, served on Patent Owner by Petitioner on September 4, 2019.
`
`Patent Owner presented these objections to Petitioner on September 8, 2019,
`
`along with a request to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the objections, as set
`
`forth in the Order regarding Requests for Oral Argument (Paper 61). Petitioner
`
`did not respond to Patent Owner’s request to meet and confer. Instead, Petitioner
`
`responded with a blanket criticism of Patent Owner’s objections on the eve of the
`
`deadline for Patent Owner to file its objections but did not provide any response
`
`to the individual objections themselves. Therefore, all of the objections remain
`
`unresolved and Patent Owner maintains them.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`BASIS
`Omits several Principal Arguments from
`Patent Owner Responses including: (1) the
`combination of Zhang and Bachmann does
`not disclose element 1(d) “a six-axis sensor
`module attached to the PCB;” (2) the
`combination of Zhang and Bachmann does
`not disclose element 1(h) “utilizing a
`comparison..., wherein the comparison
`utilized by the processing and transmitting
`module further comprises an update
`program to obtain an updated state based
`on a previous state associated with said
`first signal set and a measured state
`associated with said second signal set;” (3)
`the combination of Zhang and Bachmann
`does not disclose element 1(i) “a predicted
`measurement based on the first signal set
`without using any derivatives of the first
`signal set;” (4) a PHOSITA would not be
`motivated to combine Zhang and
`Bachmann.
`
`The cited testimony presents an incomplete
`hypothetical and is ambiguous as to
`whether it is limited to the context of the
`patents-at-issue. It is not clear whether
`Petitioner is asking the meaning of “control
`a display” in general or in the context of
`the patents at issue. Petitioner also omits
`other witness testimony that contradicts the
`limited citation included in the Slide.
`
`
`2
`
`SLIDE
`4
`
`OBJECTION
`Misrepresents Patent
`Owner’s positions and is
`therefore unfairly
`misleading.
`
`
`Misrepresents witness
`testimony through omission
`of additional testimony and
`facts that should be
`considered, and is therefore
`unfairly misleading (see,
`e.g., FRE 106, 403).
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`BASIS
`The cited testimony presents an incomplete
`hypothetical and is ambiguous whether it is
`limited to the context of the patents-at-
`issue. Moreover, whether or not
`movements of sensors can be displayed on
`a screen is not probative of the scope of the
`inventions of the patents at issue, which
`require far more.
`
`Same as Slide 7
`
`The testimony is that the CyWee Patents at
`issue are enabled, not that the
`“combination” of Zhang and Bachmann is
`enabled, as stated on the slide. It is
`therefore confusing and misleading.
`
`The testimony is that sensor fusion is
`desirable only if “need[ed] in order to get a
`result.” It does not state that Bachmann’s
`sensor fusion method would be considered
`advantageous for all devices and purposes
`as stated on the slide.
`
`The statement that CyWee suggests
`“anticipation” is required to “prove an
`obviousness case” is vague and unclear and
`does not accurately reflect CyWee’s
`position.
`
`The hypothetical is nonsensical in the
`context of the patents at issue and
`“predicting the weather” is irrelevant to an
`understanding of those patents. Petitioner
`also provides no citations to the record that
`would support the relevance of the
`hypothetical.
`
`
`3
`
`OBJECTION
`Misrepresents witness
`testimony through omission
`of additional testimony and
`facts that should be
`considered, and is therefore
`unfairly misleading; also
`lacks relevance (see, e.g.,
`FRE 106, 401, 403).
`
`Same as Slide 7
`
`Misstates and
`mischaracterizes the
`testimony and is therefore
`confusing and unfairly
`misleading (see, e.g., FRE
`403).
`Misstates and
`mischaracterizes the
`testimony and is therefore
`confusing and unfairly
`misleading (see, e.g., FRE
`403).
`
`Misstates and
`mischaracterizes Patent
`Owner positions and is
`therefore confusing and
`unfairly misleading.
`
`The hypothetical contained
`on this Slide has no
`probative value, is
`unsupported by any expert
`evidence, and is confusing
`and misleading (see, e.g.,
`FRE 401, 403).
`
`
`SLIDE
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`14
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`SLIDE
`19
`
`OBJECTION
`Misrepresents the content of
`the document through
`omission of additional
`portions of the specification
`that should be considered
`and is therefore incomplete
`and unfairly misleading
`(see, e.g., FRE 106, 403).
`
`
`20
`
`22
`
`Misstates and
`mischaracterizes witness
`testimony through omission
`of additional testimony and
`facts that should be
`considered, and is therefore
`unfairly misleading (see,
`e.g., FRE 106, 403)
`
`
`Misstates and
`mischaracterizes the record
`through omission of
`additional facts that should
`be considered, and is
`therefore unfairly
`misleading (see, e.g., FRE
`106, 403)
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`BASIS
`The Slide contains a select quote from the
`specification of the ‘978 patent and omits
`other relevant passages that contradict or
`provide further explanation of the point for
`which Petitioner cites the limited
`quote. For example, CyWee’s Reply in
`Support of the Motion to Amend cites to
`step 1040 in Fig. 10 of the ‘978 Patent,
`which reads “Calculate ‘predicted
`magnetism’ based on current state at T”
`(emphasis added)
`
`The slide characterizes Dr. LaViola’s
`testimony without reproducing it.
`Furthermore, it misstates the testimony. Dr.
`LaViola testified that the patents at issue
`use elements of an Extended Kalman filter,
`which is a novel feature “typically not
`done” in the prior art, (Ex. 1019, 41:23-
`44:19) not that Extended Kalman Filters
`are excluded. The statement is therefore
`incomplete, misleading and confusing.
`
`The slide states that a manual is the only
`evidence corroborating conception and that
`“it does not appear to relate to the proposed
`amended claims.” That is not so and is
`contrary to the record. The manual relates
`to the JIL Phone, which Petitioner has not
`argued is not a handheld
`device/smartphone with an integrated
`display screen, as required by the
`amendments. The statement is therefore
`incorrect, misleading and confusing.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`BASIS
`Mischaracterizes CyWee’s briefs as
`“commingl[ing] their analysis of the issues
`of RPI and Privity.” CyWee’s Motions to
`Terminate contain separate section
`headings and analysis for both RPI and
`Privity. The issues are not “commingled”
`simply because they are established based
`on the same underlying facts.
`
`Misstates that “CyWee’s reply has no
`response to Google’s arguments regarding
`the MADA and PAX agreements.”
`Petitioner has failed to produce agreements
`to which it is a party and that have the
`terms and conditions it argues are missing
`from the agreements identified on the
`slide. (Paper 65 at 3). This is a violation of
`Petitioner’s duties under 37 CFR §
`42.51. Petitioner’s arguments regarding
`the agreements Patent Owner has identified
`should be given no weight. Furthermore,
`CyWee has clearly indicated that MADA
`contains indemnification provisions for
`Android-based devices, which would
`include the accused devices here. (Paper 45
`at 5, ¶ 6, and 11).
`
`
`5
`
`SLIDE
`24
`
`26
`
`OBJECTION
`Mischaracterizes Patent
`Owner’s positions and
`misstates the controlling
`law and/or is irrelevant to
`the issues of RPI and
`Privity, both as to IPRs
`generally and these IPRs
`specifically, and is therefore
`confusing and misleading.
`Mischaracterizes Patent
`Owner’s positions, seeks to
`shift Petitioner’s burden to
`Patent Owner, and
`improperly seeks to rely on
`characterization of written
`agreement Patent Owner
`has not produced, and is
`therefore unfairly
`misleading (see, e.g., 37
`CFR § 42.51; FRE 403,
`1002).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission, including the
`
`exhibits hereto, was provided by email to Petitioners’ counsel via email, as agreed
`
`to by Petitioners’ Service Information in the Petition submissions, by serving the
`
`email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Counsel for Google:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`Christopher M. Colice
`colice@smithbaluch.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`
`James R. Sobieraj
`jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`
`Andrea Shoffstall
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`PH-Samsung-CyweeiIPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Counsel for LG:
`
`Collin Park
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`
`Jeremy Peterson
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`
`Andrew Devkar
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`Adam Brooke
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
`MLB_CyweeLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`