`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW
`OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00994
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 K2
`
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti has demonstrated himself unqualified to testify regarding
`
`any issues viewed from the perspective of a POSA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention in the ’347 Patent. Although PO defends Dr. Shahbakhti’s present
`
`qualifications,1 it is unable to provide any cogent explanation for the numerous
`
`examples of his inability to answer basic questions without first pausing and
`
`searching through his report for several minutes, and even then, often answering in
`
`a nonresponsive manner. His unqualified opinions, and the post-priority date
`
`documents with which he seeks to bootstrap them, should be excluded.
`
`I.
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti’s Opinions Should Be Excluded
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti most readily demonstrated his lack of qualifications to testify
`
`regarding the relevant time period during his depositions. (Mot., 4-6.) PO seeks to
`
`defend Dr. Shahbakhti’s repeated prolonged pauses, often
`
`followed by
`
`nonresponsive answers, by arguing that “[o]ne would think that it would be
`
`desirable for an expert to be careful and thoughtful before providing an answer.”
`
`(Opp., 9.) But the videotaped deposition—which Petitioners encourage the Board
`
`to watch (see BMW1101)—makes clear that Dr. Shahbakhti was not being
`
`
`1 While PO cites three IPRs decisions in which Dr. Shahbakhti’s opinions were
`
`credited, none of those IPRs concerned the period at issue here. IPR2019-00011
`
`(May 7, 2007 priority date); IPR2019-00014 and IPR2019-00012 (Feb. 16, 2009).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`“careful” and “thoughtful;” he was using the computer’s search tool to word-search
`
`for certain words he chose from counsel’s question, then reading what was written
`
`for him in his Declaration to try to make sense of it all, due to his lack of relevant
`
`knowledge and qualifications. While PO argues “it is neither surprising nor
`
`unusual that an expert would take their time to answer,” Petitioners are confident
`
`that if the Board views the video, it will find Dr. Shahbakhti’s behavior both
`
`surprising and unusual.
`
`Tellingly, PO barely attempts to defend Dr. Shahbakhti’s behavior,
`
`suggesting instead that Petitioners’ questions were somehow tricky, unexpected, or
`
`otherwise called for a legal conclusion. For example, PO complains that Dr.
`
`Shahbakhti was asked his opinion regarding what was covered within the scope of
`
`the challenged claims (Opp., 9-12), but the scope of the claims and whether the
`
`prior art’s disclosures falls within it is not an attempt at a “gotcha moment[]” (id.,
`
`12), but rather the central issue in this, and most any, IPR. And many of
`
`Petitioners’ questions were even more straight-forward than that. Indeed, even PO
`
`does not attempt to explain why it took Dr. Shahbakhti over 20 minutes to confirm
`
`he does not contest that Nii discloses “monitoring a driver’s repeated driving
`
`operations over time” (see BMW1109, 140:15-148:7),
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`
`9 minutes before answering if claim 11 requires eliminating turbo lag (98:12-23),
`
`
`
`8 minutes before answering how he analyzed two claims (101:24-102:18),
`
`
`
`5 minutes to say if a one-way clutch is a type of non-slipping clutch (114:15-115:5),
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`
`or 6 minutes before answering if claim 38 requires a two-way clutch (105:6-12),
`
`
`
`PO has no cogent explanation for these or the numerous other examples of
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti’s inability to answer Petitioners’ straight-forward questioning
`
`about his “own” analysis as stated in “his” Declaration in a responsive manner
`
`(or sometimes at all), even after his abnormal delays. (Mot., 4-6.) His opinions
`
`should therefore be excluded. See Roper v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., No. 13-
`
`cv-03661, 2015 WL 11236553 (N.D. Ga. June 29, 2015) (excluding testimony of
`
`expert who was unable to give precise answers); Chico’s Fas, Inc. v. Clair, No. 13-
`
`cv-792, 2015 WL 3496003, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2015) (warning that “evasive
`
`answers may result in the witness being disallowed as an expert”).
`
`Contrary to PO’s attempts at distraction (Opp., 1-9), Petitioners are not
`
`challenging Dr. Shahbakhti’s qualifications to opine regarding the present state of
`
`the art, or disputing the general authority that an expert need not necessarily have
`
`qualified as a POSA at the time of the invention to be qualified as an expert in the
`
`relevant field. Rather, Petitioners dispute Dr. Shahbakhti’s qualifications to opine
`
`regarding issues viewed from the perspective of a POSA prior to the September 14,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`1998 date of the alleged inventions based on his demonstrated lack of
`
`qualifications to testify regarding that time period, which was shown at his
`
`deposition, as discussed above. When combined with his undisputed lack of
`
`experience rising to the level of a POSA at the relevant time (or for several years
`
`thereafter), and his inability to provide evidence contemporaneous to the filing date
`
`of the ’347 Patent that would bolster his otherwise unsupported testimony
`
`regarding the state of the art at that time, his lack of knowledge regarding the
`
`period at issue becomes clear, and his testimony should be excluded.
`
`II. Exhibits 2018, 2020, 2022-2025 and 2028 Should Be Excluded
`
`Petitioners acknowledge (Mot., 9) that it can be appropriate to use post-
`
`filing evidence “in a supportive role.” (Opp., 14 (quoting Yeda Research v. Mylan
`
`Pharms., Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).) But the post-filing Exhibits
`
`here constitute the majority of PO’s evidence and are not corroborated with any
`
`evidence that would show that the supposed “typical structure of a turbocharged
`
`engine control system” (Opp., 13 (citing Ex. 2028)), “packaging limitations for
`
`turbochargers” (citing Ex. 2023),“mechanics of a common free wheel unit” (citing
`
`Ex. 2025), or myriad other components, systems, etc. existing at the time of these
`
`post-filing Exhibits are representative of those known at the relevant time. These
`
`Exhibits should be excluded, and Dr. Shahbakhti prevented from relying on them,
`
`which would only compound the unreliability of his unqualified opinions.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 12, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Vincent J. Galluzzo/
`Jeffrey D. Sanok (Reg. No. 32,169)
`Vincent J. Galluzzo (Reg. No. 67,830)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`Tel.: (202) 624-2500
`Fax.: (202) 628-8844
`jsanok@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`Scott L. Bittman (Reg. No. 55,007)
`Jacob Z. Zambrzycki (pro hac vice)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10022-2544
`Telephone No.: (212) 223-4000
`Facsimile No.: (212) 223-4134
`sbittman@crowell.com
`jzambrzycki@crowell.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
`and BMW of North America, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), I certify that the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Reply in Support of Motion To Exclude was served on August 12, 2021 via
`
`electronic mail on the following counsel of record for Patent Owners:
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (Reg. No. 33,487)
`Brian J. Livedalen (Reg. No. 67,450)
`Timothy W. Riffe (Reg. No. 43,881)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR36351-0004IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 12, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Vincent J. Galluzzo/
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`
`7
`
`