IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`CANON U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Inter Partes Review No. 2019-001271
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`NEW ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY (PAPER 29)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GoPro, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. were joined as
`parties to this proceeding. Paper 27.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`CANON U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`Inter Partes Review No. 2019-001271
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`NEW ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY (PAPER 29)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GoPro, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin USA, Inc. were joined as
`parties to this proceeding. Paper 27.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The New Exhibits and Arguments Violate the Letter of the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide ........................................................ 4
`
`The New Exhibits and Arguments are Highly Prejudicial to Petitioner
` ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`The New Exhibits and Arguments Would Violate Petitioner’s Due
`Process Rights ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Justify Its Late Submission of Evidence, All of
`Which Should Have and Could Have Been Submitted In Connection
`with Its Patent Owner Response..........................................................10
`
`The Proper Remedy for Patent Owner’s Violation of the Guide is
`Striking Exhibits 2025-2033 and Any Arguments Based Thereon ....13
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp.,
`710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................... 8-9
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00631, Paper 50 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2015) ................................. 11, 12
`
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 9-10
`
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................8, 9
`
`Mallinckrodt Pharm. Ir. Ltd. v. Biovie, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00974, Paper 34 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) ....................................5, 14
`
`N. Am. Coal Co. v. Miller,
`870 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1989) ..........................................................................10
`
`Navistar, Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC,
`IPR2018-00853, Paper 58 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2019) ....................................5, 14
`
`Trane U.S. Inc. v. SEMCO, LLC,
`IPR2018-00514, Paper 36 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2019) ...................................... 6-7
`
`Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 9
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)-(c), 556(d), 557(c) ...................................................................... 8
`
`Statutes
`
`Patent Trial and Appeals Board Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 ................................................... passim
`
`Rules
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s December 20, 2019 Order (Paper 36), Petitioner
`
`Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Canon”) hereby respectfully moves to strike
`
`(a) Exhibits 2025-2033, which Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “Cellspin”) belatedly submitted with its sur-reply filed on December 3, 2019
`
`(Paper 29), and (b) arguments in the sur-reply that are based on this untimely
`
`evidence.2
`
`In its Patent Owner Response filed July 22, 2019, Cellspin advanced several
`
`impermissibly narrow claim construction positions based on extrinsic testimony
`
`from its expert, Dr. Michael Foley. Paper 17 at 12-23. For example, Cellspin
`
`argued that the term “paired wireless connection” should include the requirements
`
`of “encrypted data exchange” and a link that can be “disconnected and reconnected
`
`without having to repeat pairing and authentication,” based on Dr. Foley’s
`
`argument that these were features of Bluetooth pairing. Id. at 16. In its
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Canon explained why Cellspin’s claim construction positions
`
`were improper and unsupported. Paper 24 at 3-9. For example, Canon explained
`
`
`2 As set forth in Canon’s Notice of Basis for Relief (Paper 33), Exhibits 2024 and
`2025 were identified on Cellspin’s amended exhibit list (Paper 30), but Cellspin
`did not file the exhibits at the time and has not filed them as of January 3, 2020.
`Because Cellspin failed to timely file Exhibits 2024 and 2025, it has waived any
`right to rely upon them. Canon further seeks to strike Exhibit 2025 on the grounds
`set forth in this motion.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`that Cellspin’s construction for the term “paired wireless connection” was
`
`improper because (1) the claims and specification of the ‘698 patent are not limited
`
`to Bluetooth, (2) Dr. Foley had cherry-picked two optional features from one
`
`version of the Bluetooth specification and read them into the claims, and (3) Dr.
`
`Foley had failed to analyze other pairing technologies or other versions of the
`
`Bluetooth specification. Id. at 3-7. Canon supported these arguments with cross-
`
`examination testimony from Dr. Foley, who conceded that his opinions were based
`
`on optional features found in a single version of the Bluetooth specification. Id.
`
`In the face of these arguments and damaging testimony, Cellspin sought a
`
`do-over in its sur-reply. Cellspin submitted a new 54-page declaration from Dr.
`
`Foley setting out extensive new opinions and evidence in an effort to repair
`
`Cellspin’s deficient claim construction positions. Exhibit 2026 at 14-34. Dr. Foley
`
`attempted to explain away or contextualize the parts of his deposition testimony
`
`that Canon had cited to explain why Cellspin’s claim construction positions were
`
`improper. Id. Dr. Foley also addressed technologies other than Bluetooth, such as
`
`Wi-Fi and Zigbee, citing new technical documents spanning hundreds of pages.
`
`Id. at 15-17; Exs. 2027-2033. Cellspin then incorporated Dr. Foley’s new opinions
`
`into its sur-reply—oftentimes verbatim—to argue that its original constructions
`
`were proper. Paper 29 at 3-9.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`The Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide expressly prohibits this type
`
`of belated reliance on new evidence and arguments in a sur-reply. See Patent Trial
`
`and Appeals Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 (“Guide”)
`
`at 73 (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than
`
`deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.”). There is no
`
`ambiguity in this rule. Sur-replies are for the limited purpose of responding to
`
`arguments made in reply briefs, commenting on reply declaration testimony, or
`
`pointing to cross-examination testimony. Id. They are not an opportunity for a
`
`patent owner to submit new evidence or new arguments, especially those that could
`
`have and should have been raised in a Patent Owner Response. Id.
`
`Cellspin violated this rule by submitting extensive new testimonial and
`
`documentary evidence with its sur-reply. None of the new exhibits are cross-
`
`examination transcripts.3 Instead, they include Dr. Foley’s new 54-page expert
`
`declaration (Ex. 2026); a second “supplemental” declaration from Dr. Foley that
`
`Cellspin identified on its exhibit list but did not file (Ex. 2025); webpage printouts
`
`(Exs. 2027-2028); a patent publication (Ex. 2029); an excerpt of the prosecution
`
`history for U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698 (Ex. 2030); and three technical specifications
`
`spanning hundreds of pages (Exs. 2031-2033). Cellspin did not seek prior
`
`
`3 To be sure, Canon offered to make its reply witness available for deposition, but
`Cellspin declined the opportunity to take one.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`authorization from the Board to deviate from the Guide and submit these untimely
`
`exhibits. They should thus be stricken, along with any arguments in Cellspin’s sur-
`
`reply that are based on the exhibits.
`
`In addition to violating the letter of the Guide, the new exhibits and
`
`arguments would prejudice Canon, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and
`
`its guarantees of due process, and set bad precedent. If Cellspin is permitted to
`
`rely on these exhibits and arguments, patent owners in future proceedings would be
`
`emboldened to submit new sur-reply evidence without authorization, leading to
`
`more complicated and unpredictable proceedings, and prejudice against petitioners.
`
`Accordingly, Canon respectfully requests that the Board strike Exhibits
`
`2025-2033 and all arguments in the sur-reply that are based on such evidence.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The New Exhibits and Arguments Violate the Letter of the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`The Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide sets forth “standard practices
`
`before the Board during AIA trial proceedings” based upon the Board’s trial rules.
`
`Guide at 1. These standard practices “includ[e] the structure and times for taking
`
`action in each of the AIA proceedings” to “encourage[] consistency of procedures
`
`among panels of the Board.” Id. at 1, 3. “[A]bsent special circumstances,
`
`discovery will proceed in a sequenced fashion” as set forth in the Guide. Id. at 7-8.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`The Guide defines, in no uncertain terms, the proper procedure for patent
`
`owner sur-replies and accompanying discovery: “The sur-reply may not be
`
`accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-
`
`examination of any reply witness.” Id. at 73 (emphasis added). Under the plain
`
`letter of this rule, Cellspin was not permitted to introduce new evidence with its
`
`sur-reply. See Mallinckrodt Pharm. Ir. Ltd. v. Biovie, Inc., IPR2018-00974, Paper
`
`34 at 8-9 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) (striking, in view of the Guide, portions of a sur-
`
`reply relying on new evidence in the form of a supplemental declaration that was
`
`improperly included as an exhibit to the sur-reply); Navistar, Inc. v. Fatigue
`
`Fracture Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00853, Paper 58 at 51 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2019)
`
`(granting motion to strike exhibits to a sur-reply because they “do not comply with
`
`[the Board’s] rules for proper evidence to accompany a sur-reply,” citing the
`
`Guide).
`
`Cellspin violated the Guide by submitting Exhibits 2025-2033, which
`
`consist of extensive new testimonial and documentary evidence, none of which are
`
`cross-examination transcripts. In particular, the evidence includes:
`
` a “Supplemental Declaration” from Cellspin’s expert witness, Michael
`
`Foley, Ph.D. (Ex. 2025);4
`
`
`4 As noted above, Exhibit 2025 was identified on Cellspin’s amended exhibit list,
`but not filed.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
` a 54-page “Sur-reply Declaration” from Cellspin’s expert witness,
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`Michael Foley, Ph.D. (Ex. 2026);
`
` printouts from the Internet (Exs. 2027-2028);
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2004/0059941 to Hardman et al. (Ex.
`
`2029);
`
` an excerpt of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`(Ex. 2030); and
`
` three new technical specifications spanning nearly 350 pages (Ex.
`
`2031-2033).
`
`Cellspin did not seek, and the Board did not grant, prior authorization to
`
`deviate from the Guide and submit these untimely exhibits. Under the plain letter
`
`of the Guide, therefore, these materials should be stricken, along with the portions
`
`of the sur-reply that rely upon them.
`
`B.
`
`The New Exhibits and Arguments are Highly Prejudicial to
`Petitioner
`
`In addition to violating the Guide, Cellspin’s new evidence and arguments
`
`would be highly prejudicial to Canon because Canon does not have an opportunity
`
`to respond. The Board has struck unauthorized sur-reply evidence and arguments
`
`to prevent this type of unfair prejudice. See, e.g., Trane U.S. Inc. v. SEMCO, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00514, Paper 36 at 8 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2019) (“[W]e cannot overlook a
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`party’s blatant disregard of our rules and practice when doing so would unfairly
`
`prejudice another party, unduly burden the Board’s review of the evidence, and
`
`impact the efficiency of our decision-making.”).
`
`In this case, if Cellspin is permitted to rely on new sur-reply evidence and
`
`arguments, Canon will have no opportunity to depose Cellspin’s expert witness on
`
`his extensive new opinions (set forth in two declarations), or to address Cellspin’s
`
`new evidence in briefing. For example, Cellspin’s new expert declaration (Ex.
`
`2026) includes new opinions based on new evidence, and Canon will not have the
`
`opportunity to cross-examine Cellspin’s expert witness on his extensive new
`
`declaration, opinions, and evidence. Furthermore, Canon will have no opportunity
`
`to submit briefing to address the new evidence and arguments set forth in
`
`Cellspin’s sur-reply, particularly given the rapidly approaching oral argument date
`
`of January 28, 2020.
`
`Exhibit 2026 also attempts to explain away or retract admissions that
`
`Cellspin’s expert made in his deposition given after Cellspin filed its Patent Owner
`
`Response. Cellspin’s counsel had the opportunity to address those admissions
`
`through redirect examination, but chose not to. That was the time for Cellspin to
`
`seek any additional testimony from its expert. Waiting to see how Canon would
`
`use the deposition testimony in its reply brief, then adding over 50 pages of written
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`redirect testimony without any opportunity for Canon to re-cross or respond, is
`
`highly improper and prejudicial.
`
`Cellspin also relies on the new declaration and the new exhibits to support
`
`its improper claim construction positions. These positions were set forth in
`
`Cellspin’s Patent Owner Response, and Cellspin should have submitted all
`
`evidence and expert testimony to support its positions at that time. Waiting until
`
`its sur-reply to try to patch the holes in its positions is, again, highly improper and
`
`unfairly prejudicial.
`
`To avoid this undue prejudice, the Board should strike Cellspin’s new
`
`exhibits and the portions of the sur-reply that rely upon those exhibits.
`
`C. The New Exhibits and Arguments Would Violate Petitioner’s Due
`Process Rights
`
`Leaving the new exhibits and arguments in the record would also violate the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act and its guarantees of due process. “In a formal
`
`adjudication, such as inter partes review, the APA imposes certain procedural
`
`requirements on the agency.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship v.
`
`Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Among these are
`
`the basic requirements of due process: that parties be given both notice of the
`
`evidence and arguments on which the other side relies, as well as an opportunity to
`
`respond. See id.; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)-(c), 556(d), 557(c); Abbott Labs. v.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The indispensable
`
`ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a
`
`disinterested decision-maker.”). The introduction of new evidence in the middle of
`
`a proceeding is permissible only “as long as the opposing party is given notice of
`
`the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme, 825 F.3d at 1366; see
`
`also Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(approving of new evidence included in reply declaration because opposing party
`
`deposed expert afterward and could have substantively responded through a sur-
`
`reply).
`
`Here, if the Board allows Exhibits 2025-2033 and arguments based thereon
`
`to remain in the record, those basic due process requirements will be violated. The
`
`exhibits and arguments are part of a sur-reply, to which no responsive briefing is
`
`permitted. Nor would responsive briefing, alone, provide an adequate remedy, as
`
`Canon will have no opportunity to cross examine Cellspin’s expert witness on the
`
`new material in his declarations.
`
`Canon’s only opportunity to address the new factual assertions is at the
`
`hearing, which is far too late to comport with due process. See, e.g., Dell Inc. v.
`
`Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Board denied
`
`Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion
`
`introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`meaningfully respond.”); see also N. Am. Coal Co. v. Miller, 870 F.2d 948, 951
`
`(3d Cir. 1989) (vacating and remanding agency decision on due-process grounds
`
`for failing to provide an opportunity to cross-examine witness’s opinions through
`
`deposition).
`
`Thus, to ensure Canon’s due process rights, the Board should strike Exhibits
`
`2025-2033 and the portions of the sur-reply that rely upon that evidence.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Justify Its Late Submission of Evidence, All
`of Which Should Have and Could Have Been Submitted In
`Connection with Its Patent Owner Response
`
`There is no justification for Cellspin’s failure to timely submit the new
`
`evidence and arguments submitted with its sur-reply brief. Cellspin has argued in
`
`its Notice of Basis for Relief that its new evidence and arguments are justified
`
`because of supposed improprieties in Canon’s reply brief and accompanying
`
`evidence. See Paper 35 at 2-5. The Board should reject this argument for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`First, Cellspin’s allegations about Canon’s reply and evidence are incorrect.
`
`As Canon explained in its reply paper, Cellspin’s Patent Owner Response
`
`advanced narrow claim construction positions that were inconsistent with the
`
`intrinsic record of the ‘698 patent and based on Dr. Foley’s attempt to read
`
`optional features from one version of the Bluetooth specification into the claims.
`
`Paper 24 at 3-9. Canon submitted rebuttal evidence to explain why Cellspin’s
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`claim construction positions—and arguments based on those positions—were
`
`improper, and further to explain why the challenged claims are unpatentable even
`
`under Cellspin’s narrow constructions. This evidence is entirely proper in the
`
`context of a reply paper. See Guide at 73 (“A party also may submit rebuttal
`
`evidence in support of its reply.”); see also Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00631, Paper 50 at 54 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2015).
`
`By contrast, Cellspin’s sur-reply presents evidence and arguments that it
`
`could have and should have presented in connection with its Patent Owner
`
`Response filed on July 22, 2019. The new evidence and arguments are designed to
`
`correct deficiencies in the improper claim constructions that Cellspin presented in
`
`its Patent Owner Response. Compare Paper 17 at 12-23 with Ex. 2026 at 14-34.
`
`For example, Dr. Foley’s sur-reply declaration presents new opinions and evidence
`
`based on technical specifications for the Wi-Fi and Zigbee standards, despite the
`
`fact that his original opinions were based on Bluetooth version 2.1 + EDR. See Ex.
`
`2026 at 14-34; see also Ex. 1040 at 19:7-11 (“Q. First, the opinions in your
`
`declaration are based on the version 2.1 + EDR specification of Bluetooth; is that
`
`correct? A. Correct. And any time I quote the Bluetooth specification of pull from
`
`it, it is the 2.1 + EDR.”). There is no justification for Cellspin and Dr. Foley’s late
`
`submission of evidence and arguments based on, e.g., the Wi-Fi and Zigbee
`
`standards. If Cellspin believed this evidence and corresponding arguments were
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`necessary to support its claim construction positions, then it should have submitted
`
`them in connection with its Patent Owner Response. Instead, it limited its
`
`arguments to a single version of the Bluetooth specification (version 2.1 + EDR)
`
`and forewent any analysis of other versions of Bluetooth or other standards such as
`
`Wi-Fi and Zigbee.
`
`Accordingly, contrary to Cellspin’s assertion, Canon’s motion here and
`
`Cellspin’s expected motion to strike are not “intertwined” in any way. See Paper
`
`35 at 3. There is no question that Cellspin violated the Guide’s express prohibition
`
`on submitting new evidence with a sur-reply. Canon, on the other hand, properly
`
`submitted new evidence with its reply, as permitted under the Board’s rules and the
`
`Guide, and in response to arguments and evidence raised in Cellspin’s Patent
`
`Owner Response. See Canon, IPR2014-00631, Paper 50 at 54; see also Guide at
`
`73 (“A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply. . . . The
`
`sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition
`
`transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Second, if a party believes that the opposing party has exceeded the proper
`
`scope of a reply, then it should timely request authorization to file a motion to
`
`strike. Guide at 80.5 Parties should not, as Cellspin did here, engage in
`
`
`5 As Canon will explain in its opposition to Cellspin’s expected motion to strike,
`Cellspin raised the possibility of a motion to strike 48 days after Canon submitted
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`unauthorized self-help by submitting new evidence and impermissible sur-reply
`
`arguments that purportedly respond to the alleged improper reply, and then only
`
`seek to strike the reply after filing a sur-reply.
`
`Allowing Cellspin’s conduct here would establish bad precedent in future
`
`proceedings before the Board. Patent owners would cite this case as precedent for
`
`filing unauthorized sur-reply evidence, which would needlessly complicate
`
`proceedings and impose prejudice on petitioners. To avoid setting such precedent,
`
`the Board should strike Cellspin’s new evidence and arguments.
`
`E.
`
`The Proper Remedy for Patent Owner’s Violation of the Guide is
`Striking Exhibits 2025-2033 and Any Arguments Based Thereon
`
`Canon understands that the Board views motions to strike as an exceptional
`
`remedy. See Guide at 80-81. The circumstances here—including an indisputable
`
`violation of the Guide that results in undue prejudice to Canon—are precisely the
`
`type of exceptional circumstances that warrant this remedy.
`
`Canon submits that the Board has no reasonable alternative to striking the
`
`new evidence and arguments. As explained above, not only is it “beyond dispute”
`
`that the “evidence is belatedly presented” (see Guide at 80-81), but anything short
`
`of that remedy would violate Canon’s due process rights and the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act, and unfairly prejudice Canon in a significant way. The
`
`its reply, and only after Canon had notified Cellspin that it intended to strike
`Cellspin’s sur-reply evidence.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`circumstances here are thus exactly the type of exceptional situation that the Guide
`
`instructs will justify a motion to strike. See Guide at 80-81. And the Board has
`
`done just that in other cases presenting the same type of violation. See, e.g.,
`
`Mallinckrodt, IPR2018-00974, Paper 34 at 8-9; Navistar, IPR2018-00853, Paper
`
`58 at 51.
`
`Should the Board wish to impose a more lenient sanction as an alternative to
`
`striking portions of the sur-reply, however, the Board could strike the new
`
`evidence and treat the statements in the sur-reply based on that evidence as
`
`unsupported attorney argument.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Canon respectfully requests that the Board strike
`
`Exhibits 2025-2033 and all arguments in Cellspin’s December 3, 2019 sur-reply
`
`that are based on these exhibits.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 3, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jared W. Newton
`Jared Newton
`Reg. No. 65,818
`jarednewton@quinnemaneul.com
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00127
`Petitioner’s Motion to Strike
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 3, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Strike was served by filing this document through the PTAB’s E2E
`
`Filing System as well as delivery via electronic mail to the following:
`
`John J. Edmonds
`Email: pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Stephen F. Schlather
`Email: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`
`/s/ Jared W. Newton
`Jared Newton
`Reg. No. 65,818
`jarednewton@quinnemaneul.com
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
