`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YITA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MACNEIL IP LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. The Board should deny PO’s motion to submit supplemental information
`because PO inappropriately seeks to remedy its procedural and substantive
`failures. ............................................................................................................ 4
`A. A translator available for deposition could have been obtained earlier
`and EX2137 would prejudice Petitioner. .............................................. 5
`PO inappropriately seeks to augment its alleged secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness with EX2132-EX2136 and
`EX2127. ...............................................................................................10
`Complete certified translations could have been reasonably obtained
`earlier (EX2115 and EX2128).............................................................12
`PO improperly seeks to submit new “probative evidence” (EX2129)
`in response to Petitioner’s objections. .................................................13
`Corrected declarations EX2114 and EX2126 are untimely
`supplemental evidence. .......................................................................14
`IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................15
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board should deny Patent Owner MacNeil IP LLC’s (“PO”) motion to
`
`submit supplemental information. PO’s motion is a belated attempt to introduce
`
`twelve new exhibits to correct deficient evidence it relied on in its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (“POR”). But “late submission of supplemental information” requires
`
`two factors: 1) that the “information reasonably could not have been obtained
`
`earlier,” and 2) that its consideration “would be in the interests-of-justice.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(b). PO satisfies neither.
`
`PO concedes its new exhibits are in response to Petitioner’s objections;1
`
`therefore, they are supplemental evidence, not supplemental information.
`
`Moreover, the new exhibits all reasonably could have been obtained earlier, as
`
`detailed below. And the Board should not allow PO’s principal argument—that it
`
`was unaware of its own numerous errors until Petitioner’s objections—to be the
`
`fulcrum PO uses to leverage its own errors to its advantage to submit new exhibits
`
`as supplemental information. Mot., 1, 8, 9-10, 11, 12, 13, 15.
`
`
`1 PO complains about the number of Petitioner’s objections, Mot., 1,
`
`EX2138, 9:15-22, but PO’s deficient evidence compelled Petitioner’s objections,
`
`which are required to preserve Petitioner’s right to file a motion to exclude. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`PO alleges that it seeks to address “informalities and filing oversights
`
`involving a small subset of exhibits….” Mot., 1. But, PO mischaracterizes the
`
`extent of its corrections, which include substantive additions to the record (not
`
`“informalities”) after neglecting Board Rules (not “filing oversights”). PO’s new
`
`translation, amended claims charts, new testimony, new translation certifications,
`
`U.S. Customs and Border Protection forms, and corrected declarations attempt to
`
`fix failures, not mere “informalities” or minor “inadvertent errors.” Mot., 12, 13,
`
`14.
`
`All but admitting that its own mistakes do not satisfy the requirements for
`
`supplemental information under Section 42.123(b), PO asks the Board to waive the
`
`Rule and allow PO to supplement its arguments and augment the record. Mot., 14-
`
`15. Doing so would be prejudicial and against the interests-of-justice. The Board’s
`
`Rules are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding. PO’s disregard for the Board’s Rules should not be rewarded by
`
`allowing PO’s supplemental information. The Board should deny PO’s motion.
`
`II. Legal Standards
`As the party moving to submit late supplemental information, PO has the
`
`burden to show “why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been
`
`obtained earlier, and that consideration of the supplemental information would be
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`in the interests-of-justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).2 Thus, PO must explain
`
`specifically why the Board should admit the evidence now, because supplemental
`
`information is not intended to provide an avenue for bolstering deficiencies, as PO
`
`plainly is attempting here. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Immersion Corp.,
`
`IPR2018-01499, Paper 19 at 3 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2019); Pacific Mkt. Int’l, LLC v.
`
`Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014); GoPro v.
`
`Contour IP Holdings, IPR2015-01078, Paper 40 at 2-4 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2016)
`
`(rejecting patent owner’s argument that it reasonably could not have obtained
`
`supplemental information earlier because it was unaware of petitioner’s objections
`
`until petitioner made them).
`
`The Board also denies motions to submit supplemental information when the
`
`other party would be prejudiced by the new evidence and arguments. See, e.g.,
`
`Hyberbranch Med. Tech., Inc. v. Incept LLC, IPR2016-01836, Paper 32 at 6
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017) (“Filing the documents as late supplemental information
`
`would, therefore, add information to the record in an untimely manner prejudicing
`
`Petitioner.”); Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc., IPR2019-01235, Paper
`
`56 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2020).
`
`Even if PO met the requirements of Section 42.123—which it does not— the
`
`Board has discretion to deny the motion. Redline Detection, LLC v. Star
`
`
`2 Emphasis added unless noted.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 445–447 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining whether
`
`to permit supplemental information, the Board may “consider other factors,
`
`timeliness, and relevancy, all within the overarching context of the Board’s
`
`regulations governing inter partes review and general trial proceedings.” In-Depth
`
`Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co., IPR2019-00850, Paper 27 at 3 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 5, 2019) (citing Redline Detection, LLC, 811 F.3d at 446–447). Thus, the
`
`Board should consider its other Rules to ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of the proceeding, see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”), 4—
`
`for example, the Rules requiring a party to make a declarant available for a
`
`deposition (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b)(2)), provide proper English translations (37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(b)), provide a signature page for a declaration (37 C.F.R. § 1.68),
`
`and provide correct and accurate papers (37 C.F.R. § 42.11(c); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`11.18(b)(2)).
`
`III. The Board should deny PO’s motion to submit supplemental information
`because PO inappropriately seeks to remedy its procedural and substantive
`failures.
`PO seeks to submit its twelve exhibits but cannot provide any reason why it
`
`could not have reasonably obtained this information earlier without admitting a
`
`litany of mistakes and failures to comply with the Board’s Rules. Realizing it
`
`cannot plausibly satisfy Section 42.123, PO asks the Board to waive this Rule if
`
`the Board finds that PO could have submitted its information earlier. Mot., 15. PO
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`cites CaptionCall and Biomarin as allegedly supporting its position. Id. But both
`
`cases are distinguishable on the facts, and neither is on point here. See
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00541, Paper 61 at 9-10 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Sep. 24, 2014) (patent owner did not contest the accuracy of petitioner’s
`
`translation); Biomarin Pharm. Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship,
`
`IPR2013-00537, Paper 78 at 5-6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015) (finding the supplemental
`
`information in the interests-of-justice because the moving party made continuous
`
`attempts to obtain the information). Here, waiver is not warranted because PO
`
`merely attempts to bolster deficiencies of its own making under the guise of
`
`supplemental information, and only after Petitioner’s proper objections. And since
`
`PO’s arguments fail to satisfy Section 42.123 for each exhibit, its motion should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`A. A translator available for deposition could have been obtained
`earlier and EX2137 would prejudice Petitioner.
`Exhibit 2137 is a new translation of the Yung foreign application. Mot., 4.
`
`PO’s only argument that Exhibit 2137 could not have reasonably been obtained
`
`earlier is that Mr. Li, who provided the first translation of the Yung foreign
`
`application (EX2023), is unavailable for a deposition. Mot., 4. PO also argues that
`
`submission of EX2137 is in the interests-of-justice because it is “highly relevant to
`
`PO’s argument.” Id. But PO fails to meet its burden under both parts of Section
`
`42.123(b).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`It is a fundamental principle of routine discovery that if a party proffers a
`
`witness’s testimony, that party must make that witness available for cross-
`
`examination. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51–42.53. The Board’s Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide is clear: “a party presenting a witness’s testimony by affidavit
`
`should arrange to make the witness available for cross-examination. This applies to
`
`witnesses employed by a party as well as experts and non-party witnesses.” TPG,
`
`23.
`
`PO provides no legitimate explanation for why a translation from an
`
`available translator could not have been obtained earlier. First, PO should have
`
`expected Petitioner would seek to depose PO’s translators because PO made
`
`translations an issue in this case, requesting to depose Petitioner’s translator (with
`
`which Petitioner complied). Paper 23 (notice of deposition of Petitioner’s
`
`translator). Moreover, PO has an obligation to know and comply with the Board’s
`
`Rules, which includes offering a declaration from an available declarant. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.101. Thus, PO cannot plead ignorance; it should have known a
`
`deposition was likely. PO’s negligence and failure to prepare is all the more
`
`problematic given its assertion that the translation allegedly “is highly relevant to
`
`PO’s argument.” Mot., 4.
`
`Second, PO requested a four-week extension to file its POR (which
`
`Petitioner agreed to), yet apparently only inquired about Mr. Li’s availability after
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`Petitioner sought his deposition. See Papers 23, 24; Mot., 2. PO should have either
`
`secured Mr. Li’s availability for a deposition when obtaining his translation, or
`
`hired an available U.S.-based translator during its extensive response window. See
`
`Rayvio Corp. v. Nitride Semiconductors Co., Ltd., IPR2018-01139, Paper 38 at 5-6
`
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 28 2019) (“Patent Owner has not shown that it could not have
`
`obtained a translation of JP H07-312445 prior to filing its Response on April 22,
`
`2019”). Instead, PO filed its translation without regard for PTAB discovery rules
`
`or its translator’s availability, even after having deposed Petitioner’s translator.
`
`Third, Mr. Li’s unavailability for deposition does not provide a basis to
`
`submit a new translation as supplemental information. PO alleges that the current
`
`facts are analogous to Quanergy where the Board granted submission of an
`
`unopposed new translation after the original translator refused to be deposed. Mot.,
`
`5 (citing Quanergy Systems. Inc. v. Velodyne LiDAR, Inc., IPR2018-00255, Paper
`
`23 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2018)). But in Quanergy, the petitioner detailed its
`
`substantial efforts to have its original translator available and its difficulty finding
`
`a new translator to recertify or retranslate the reference, and the substitution was
`
`unopposed, unlike here. Quanergy, IPR2018-00255, Paper 23; id., Paper 19 at 2-6.
`
`PO here alleges that it attempted to make Mr. Li available but PO does not
`
`describe how its efforts were unsuccessful, such as Mr. Li refusing to travel to
`
`Hong Kong, where U.S. depositions are permitted. Mot., 2; Shenzhen Carku Tech.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`Co. v. The Noco Co., IPR2020-00944, Paper 56 at 2 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2021).
`
`Rather, PO submits a new (and different) translation under the guise of
`
`supplemental information to circumvent its failure to make its declarant available.
`
`The Board routinely denies submitting a new translation as supplemental
`
`information, particularly when it could have been submitted earlier or when a
`
`declarant is unavailable for deposition. See, e.g., Rayvio Corp., IPR2018-01139,
`
`Paper 38 at 5-6; Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-
`
`00683, Paper 32 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2019) (denying supplemental information
`
`when party could have submitted the exhibits and supplemental testimony with its
`
`filing); Shenzhen Carku Tech. Co., IPR2020-00944, Paper 32 at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`
`16, 2021) (denying request to submit declaration from available witness as
`
`supplemental information when party “offered no reason” it could not have been
`
`submitted earlier); Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Techs., LLC, IPR2019-00627, Paper
`
`74 at 5-13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) (denying motion to submit a supplemental
`
`declaration after original declarant refused to participate in deposition.); 1964
`
`Ears, LLC. v. Jerry Harvey Audio Holding, LLC, IPR2016-00494, Paper 40
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) (granting motion to strike declaration when declarant was
`
`not made available for deposition); Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00312, Paper 37 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) (declarant in Hong Kong
`
`needed to be made available for deposition in the U.S., or his declaration had to be
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`withdrawn); Abbott Vascular, Inc. v. Flexstent, IPR2019-00882, Paper 48 at 32
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020) (excluding declaration when party failed to secure
`
`declarant’s attendance at deposition). There is no reason a translation by an
`
`available translator could not have been reasonably obtained earlier. PO thus failed
`
`to meet its burden under Section 42.123(b).
`
`Although the inquiry ends because PO failed the first part of Section
`
`42.123(b), PO asserts that its new translation is in the interests-of-justice. Mot., 4-
`
`5. While failing to follow Board Rules, PO alleges that the new translation is
`
`“highly relevant to PO’s argument” and “materially identical” to the original
`
`translation. Id. PO fails to consider the prejudice to Petitioner. It is undeniable that
`
`there are differences between the original and new translations—and PO’s
`
`protestation that they are “materially identical” is unsupported and rings especially
`
`hollow given the emphasis PO has placed on translation nuances in this case.
`
`PO’s assertion that Petitioner would not be prejudiced is not credible. Id., 6.
`
`Petitioner is prejudiced by a different translation at this stage because PO willingly
`
`filed a translation by an unavailable declarant and now, after deposing Petitioner’s
`
`translator (EX2040), requesting multiple extensions to the POR window (Papers
`
`24, 25), citing Mr. Li’s translation throughout its POR, and questioning Petitioner’s
`
`expert about Mr. Li’s translation (EX2039, 290:7-300:4), PO seeks to replace that
`
`translation with a different one. See EX2138, 11:18-13:2. Petitioner and its expert
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`have thus both invested resources in analyzing Mr. Li’s translation. The Board
`
`should not permit PO’s entirely avoidable bait-and-switch to Petitioner’s
`
`detriment.
`
`Disregarding the Board’s Rules and failing to ensure that its translator, relied
`
`on throughout the POR, is available for a deposition, does not establish that a new
`
`translation is in the interests-of-justice. Allowing PO to submit a new translation at
`
`this stage to cure avoidable missteps would set a slippery slope precedent that
`
`allows parties to replace deficient evidence through supplemental information.
`
`PO inappropriately seeks to augment its alleged secondary
`B.
`considerations of non-obviousness with EX2132-EX2136 and EX2127.
`PO moves to admit “corrected” claim charts—more appropriately
`
`characterized as amended claim charts—and a supplemental declaration adding to
`
`PO’s secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Mot., 12-14. PO argues that
`
`the new exhibits correct inadvertent errors depicting “a different one of [PO’s]
`
`products instead of the one that was intended to be put into the claim chart.” Id.;
`
`EX2138, 10:5-18. PO alleges the exhibits fix errors “identified while investigating
`
`Petitioner’s objections,” but PO hides that its exhibits provide new analysis and
`
`new testimony. Mot., 13.
`
`PO’s new claim charts (EX2132-EX2136) and supplemental declaration
`
`(EX2127) are supplemental evidence in response to Petitioner’s objections under
`
`the guise of supplemental information. See GoPro, IPR2015-01078, Paper 40 at 2-
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`4. PO’s changes are not based on information or evidence newly discovered.
`
`Rather, PO realized its deficiencies and now desires to fix and supplement its POR
`
`arguments. PO concedes as much, explaining that “Mr. Granger’s declaration also
`
`explains the source of the sales and revenue figures supporting his previously-
`
`submitted testimony.” Mot., 13. But supplemental information may not bolster the
`
`POR deficiencies. Pacific Mkt. Int’l, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 at 3;
`
`Hyberbranch, IPR2016-01836, Paper 32 at 6.
`
`Further, PO’s assertion that the amended claim charts “merely correct
`
`inadvertent errors” to one product’s photographs, is disingenuous and strains
`
`credulity. Mot., 14. In addition to changing the product, PO provides new
`
`testimony, annotations, and photographs going to both PO’s argument and
`
`underlying evidence. Indeed, PO’s attempts to supplement its arguments are
`
`apparent by comparing the amended charts to the original. Key differences include
`
`new analysis and photographs. Compare EX2089, 12-13 with EX2133, 12
`
`(completely different photograph with new annotations added to distinguish a 1st
`
`tray wall, central plate, substantially uniform thickness, and 3rd tray wall); compare
`
`EX2088, 11 with EX2132, 11-12 (new page containing different analysis of
`
`“substantially uniform thickness”); compare EX2091, 1 with EX2134, 1 (different
`
`photographs and floor tray annotation); compare EX2092, 12 with EX2135, 12
`
`(different photograph distinguishing baffle); compare EX2093, 12 with EX2136
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`(same). These are substantive differences, not mere “inadvertent errors” as PO
`
`inaccurately alleges.
`
`Thus, in order to correct substantive deficiencies, PO seeks to augment the
`
`record with substantively new exhibits that could certainly have been obtained
`
`earlier. But supplemental information is not for correcting PO’s mistakes. Pacific
`
`Mkt. Int’l, IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 at 3. The Board should not allow it.
`
`C. Complete certified translations could have been reasonably
`obtained earlier (EX2115 and EX2128).
`PO moves to submit a supplemental declaration with additional French
`
`translations from its translator (EX2115) and a corrected exhibit of a certified
`
`German-to-English translation (EX2128)—again in response to Petitioner’s
`
`objections. Mot., 9, 11. In its Motion, PO contradicts itself, again diminishing its
`
`credibility. PO acknowledges 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) requires submitting an English
`
`translation of a foreign document along with an affidavit attesting to the translation
`
`accuracy. Id., 10, 12. Yet in the next breath, PO asserts that it “did not believe
`
`these exhibits required further translation.” Mot., 10. Clearly, a complete
`
`translation, as required by the Rules, could have reasonably been obtained earlier
`
`because PO had partial translations completed. PO’s disregard for the Rules is the
`
`only reason complete and certified translations were not filed in the first place.
`
`Allowing the supplemental declaration and corrected translation as supplemental
`
`information in response to Petitioner’s objections would be inappropriate.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`PO improperly seeks to submit new “probative evidence”
`D.
`(EX2129) in response to Petitioner’s objections.
`PO moves to submit a new exhibit that is allegedly “further probative
`
`evidence regarding the origin and model year of the Lada Niva vehicle” that it
`
`supposedly discovered when investigating Petitioner’s objections. Mot., 12. While
`
`new evidence is to be expected in the course of trial, the Board allows
`
`supplemental information when the moving party can establish that the information
`
`could not have been obtained earlier, as required by the Rules. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
`
`LLC v. Immunex Corp., IPR2017-01884, Paper 30 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2018);
`
`see also Quantile Techs. Ltd. v. Troptima AB, CBM2020-00011, Paper 30 at 3
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2021) (“In our view, a party’s desire to submit additional
`
`evidence intended to respond directly to an opposing party’s arguments is not
`
`generally the role of a request to submit ‘supplemental information’ pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123.”). Here, PO does not even attempt to explain why it could have
`
`not obtained this allegedly “probative evidence,” U.S. Customs and Border
`
`Protection forms, earlier in the proceeding. PO’s silence speaks volumes. PO
`
`simply wishes to add evidence where it sees a deficiency in its POR evidence,
`
`which is an improper use of supplemental information.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`E. Corrected declarations EX2114 and EX2126 are untimely
`supplemental evidence.
`PO moves to submit two corrected declarations: Mr. Li’s declaration
`
`(EX2114) attesting to the translation accuracy of TW363545 in EX2023, and Mr.
`
`Granger’s declaration (EX2126) including a corrected signature page. PO again
`
`argues that both could not have reasonably been obtained earlier because PO only
`
`became aware of the deficiencies with Petitioner’s objections. Mot., 8-9, 10-11. PO
`
`seeks to file its evidence in response to Petitioner’s objections to support the
`
`declarations’ admissibility, and thus are supplemental evidence, not supplemental
`
`information.
`
`PO relies on R.J. Reynolds to assert that the Board “authoriz[es] filing of [a]
`
`declaration as supplemental information to remedy deficiency under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(b),” but PO misstates the Board’s finding and ignores that the motion in R.J.
`
`Reynolds was unopposed. Mot., 9 (citing R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem
`
`Holdings 1 B.V., IPR2016-01272, Paper 27 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)).
`
`Indeed, “R.J. Reynolds determined that such a new declaration [to cure failures] is
`
`supplemental evidence, despite that the petitioner sought to file it as supplemental
`
`information.” K/S Himpp v. III Holdings 4, LLC, IPR2017-00781, Paper 26 at 55
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 23, 2018) (distinguishing R.J. Reynolds). Similarly, supplemental
`
`information is not appropriate to correct a declaration “when the sole error is the
`
`omission for the required language from either 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 or 28 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`1746.” Fine Agrochemicals Ltd., Stoller Enterprises, Inc., IPR2020-00683, Paper 9
`
`at 3-6 (PTAB June 17, 2020). PO’s supplemental declarations are really just
`
`attempts to cure failures under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. PO’s
`
`corrected exhibits are not proper supplemental information because PO cannot
`
`adequately explain why they could have not been obtained earlier. The Board
`
`should not allow PO to fix its mistakes under the guise of supplemental
`
`information.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`The Board should deny PO’s motion to submit supplemental information
`
`because PO failed to carry its burden under Section 42.123(b). The information PO
`
`seeks to submit is intended to correct its own legal and factual missteps in response
`
`to Petitioner’s objections. PO does not explain why this information could have not
`
`reasonably been obtained earlier because it would require PO to admit its errors.
`
`Supplemental information is not intended to allow PO to correct its neglect for the
`
`Rules. The Board should deny the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason A. Fitzsimmons/
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons
`Reg. No. 65,367
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 24, 2021
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION,
`TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
`1.
`This Opposition complies with the type-volume limitation of 15 pages,
`
`comprising 15 pages, excluding the parts exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`This Opposition complies with the general format requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a) and has been prepared using Microsoft® Word 2016 in 14 point
`
`Times New Roman.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason A. Fitzsimmons/
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons
`Reg. No. 65,367
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`Date: June 24, 2021
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01139
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 24, 2021, a true and correct
`
`
`
`
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) was served electronically via e-mail in its
`
`entirety on the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`David G. Wille (Lead Counsel)
`Chad C. Walters (Back-up Counsel)
`Clarke W. Stavinoha (Back-up Counsel)
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`david.wille@bakerbotts.com
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`clarke.stavinoha@bakerbotts.com
`
`Jefferson Perkins (Back-up Counsel)
`PERKINS IP LAW GROUP LLC
`jperkins@perkinsip.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Jason A. Fitzsimmons/
`
`Jason A. Fitzsimmons
`Reg. No. 65,367
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 24, 2021
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`16902167.docx
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
