`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.: IPR2020-01386
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c), and consistent with their
`
`motion to exclude largely the same evidence in IPR2020-00994, Petitioners move
`
`to exclude Exhibits 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and 2033.1 Each of
`
`Exhibits 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028 and 2033 post-dates the ’634 Patent’s
`
`alleged priority date by several years, some by decades. As such, each should be
`
`excluded as irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Any opinions in Dr.
`
`Shahbakhti’s declaration (Exhibit 2016) that rely on these Exhibits should likewise
`
`be excluded because they are not based on sufficient facts or data that are relevant
`
`to this case, are not relevant to any ground upon which this trial was instituted, and
`
`do not pass the admissibility threshold of Federal Rule 402.
`
`Furthermore, the opinions in Dr. Shahbakhti’s declaration (Ex. 2016)
`
`regarding what a POSITA would have known or how a POSITA would have
`
`viewed the prior art at the time of the purported inventions are substantially
`
`identical to the ones he offered regarding those respective subjects in IPR2020-
`
`00994. Accordingly, should the Board exclude Dr. Shahbakhti’s opinions in
`
`IPR2020-00994, including because he was unable to answer straightforward
`
`questions without first spending several minutes—sometimes as many as 8-10
`
`1 Petitioners’ Motion in IPR2020-00994 did not move to exclude Ex. 2033 and
`
`additionally moved to exclude Ex. 2025, not included here.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`minutes—word-searching what was written for him in his declaration only to read
`
`that back as his answer, the Board should likewise exclude those same opinions
`
`here. See IPR2020-00994, Paper 39 at 3-9.
`
`Regardless of the amount of time he took to answer deposition questions,
`
`though, Dr. Shahbakhti is not qualified, and has not otherwise become qualified, to
`
`testify regarding issues viewed from the perspective of a POSITA prior to the
`
`September 14, 1998 critical date. It is undisputed that Dr. Shahbakhti did not have
`
`the necessary qualifications in 1998 (and did not gain those qualifications until
`
`several years later). While an expert need not necessarily have qualified as a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention to be qualified as an expert to testify in an
`
`IPR, proper expert testimony must be supported by something from the critical
`
`period to back-fill the expert’s lack of personal knowledge and experience. Rather
`
`than study up on contemporaneous literature, talk to persons who were industry
`
`experts at the time, or do anything else to substantiate his opinions regarding the
`
`knowledge and perspective of a POSITA in 1998, Dr. Shahbakhti simply cites to
`
`documents that post-date the critical date by as much as two decades. Having
`
`nothing to link the propriety of his opinions to the critical date, Dr. Shahbakhti
`
`cannot competently testify in this case, and his opinion should be excluded.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ TIMELY OBJECTIONS
`
`I.
`
`On May 3, 2021, Patent Owners (“PO”) filed their Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 20, “POR”), along with Exhibits 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and
`
`2033. Petitioners timely filed their objections to these exhibits on May 10, 2021.
`
`(See Paper 21.) There, Petitioners objected to Exhibit 2016 because Dr. Shahbakhti
`
`(a) lacks the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to
`testify as an expert in a manner that is helpful to the Board;
`(b) provides opinions that are not based on sufficient facts or data, or
`ones that he has been made aware of or personally observed; (c) has
`not applied reliable principles and methods; and (d) has not reliably
`applied such principles and methods to the facts of the case,
`
`all of which violates Federal Rules 402 and 702, and because Dr. Shahbakhti “fails
`
`to identify with particularity the underlying facts or data on which his opinions are
`
`based” in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). (Paper 21 at 1.) Exhibit 2016 was also
`
`objectionable “to the extent it relies on or incorporates inadmissible exhibits,” such
`
`as Exhibits 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and 2033. Id.
`
`Petitioners objected to each of Exhibits 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and
`
`2033 as not being relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 because each
`
`exhibit was dated “significantly after the September 14, 1998 priority date of the
`
`’634 Patent, which is the date that Dr. Shahbakhti states that he is using for
`
`gauging the skill of the art.” (Id. at 2-4 (citing Ex. 2016, ¶ 29).)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`Petitioners now move to exclude Exhibits 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022-2024,
`
`2028, and 2033 consistent with those objections.
`
`II. Non-Prior Art Exhibits 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and 2033, and Dr.
`Shahbakhti’s Opinions in Exhibit 2016 that Rely on These Exhibits,
`Should Be Excluded Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402
`Federal Rule of Evidence 402 bluntly proscribes “[i]rrelevant evidence” as
`
`“not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. It is well established that one “must look at
`
`the state of the art at the time the invention was made to find a motivation” to
`
`combine prior art references. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Matrix Labs., Ltd., 619 F.3d
`
`1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Thus, evidence “issued after the
`
`invention date” is “of limited relevance” to the question of motivation to combine,
`
`for example. Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d
`
`1293, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`While Petitioners recognize that it can be appropriate to use post-filing
`
`evidence to show the state of the art existing around the time of the patent’s filing
`
`date, an expert should not rely solely—or even mostly—on such post-filing
`
`evidence; there must be something that ties an expert’s testimony to the critical
`
`date, whether it be personal knowledge or citation to contemporaneous industry
`
`publications. Yet only three of the ten (just 30%) exhibits on which Dr. Shahbakhti
`
`relies predate the ’634 Patent’s alleged priority date. (Exs. 2019, 2021, 2033.) The
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`remaining exhibits all post-date that priority date, some by as long as 7, 10, 13, and
`
`20 years. (Exs. 2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, 2033.)
`
`This is not a case where Dr. Shahbakhti is relying on one or two exhibits,
`
`close to the challenged patent’s priority date, to further prove up a POSITA’s
`
`knowledge or motivations at the relevant time, as may have been expressed in
`
`another time-appropriate document. Instead, Dr. Shahbakhti attempts to fill in gaps
`
`regarding a POSITA’s knowledge or motivations for which he has no evidence
`
`contemporaneous to or predating the ’634 Patent filing date by citing references
`
`that concern hybrid vehicle technology as it existed one-to-two decades after the
`
`time of the alleged invention. Without any evidence contemporaneous to the ’634
`
`Patent to support these much-too-modern exhibits, and because Dr. Shahbakhti has
`
`demonstrated his inability to provide reliable testimony on the knowledge or
`
`motivations of a POSITA at the relevant time (see infra), Exhibits 2018, 2020,
`
`2022-2024, 2028, and 2033 should be excluded as irrelevant under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 402.
`
`III. Dr. Shahbakhti’s Opinions Ostensibly from the Perspective of a
`POSITA at the Time of the Purported Inventions Should Be Excluded
`Under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 602, and 702
`Petitioners recognize that the Board routinely denies motions to exclude
`
`expert witnesses because the Board can give appropriate weight to testimony based
`
`on its credibility determinations rather than resort to exclusion. But “where an
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`issue calls for consideration of evidence from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, it is contradictory to Rule 702 to allow a witness to testify on the
`
`issue who is not qualified as a technical expert in that art.” Sundance, Inc. v.
`
`DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Dr. Shahbakhti
`
`has no perspective of a skilled artisan as of 1998, and should therefore be
`
`prohibited from “testify[ing] as an expert on obviousness, or any of the underlying
`
`technical questions, such as the nature of the claimed invention, the scope and
`
`content of prior art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art,
`
`or the motivation of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references to
`
`achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1364.
`
` Like the ’347 Patent in IPR2020-00994, the ’634 Patent claims priority to
`
`provisional application No. 60/100,095, filed on September 14, 1998. (BMW1001
`
`at (60).) Dr. Shahbakhti relies on that date as the earliest priority date of the ’634
`
`Patent. (Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 29-30.) Yet Dr. Shahbakhti admitted that he had no industry
`
`experience whatsoever in September of 1998. (BMW1089 at 13:17-19.) In fact, he
`
`had not even obtained a bachelor’s degree at that time. (Id. at 13:6-12.) He would
`
`not get one until two years later, in 2000. (Id. at 13:13-16.) Therefore,
`
`contemporaneously, Dr. Shahbakhti was not close to meeting his own definition of
`
`a person of ordinary skill at that time, which requires “at least a Bachelor’s of
`
`Science degree in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering and at least
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`three years of technical experience…” (Ex. 2016, ¶ 29, emphasis added.) While he
`
`has since achieved that threshold degree and experience, his testimony and
`
`inability to identify contemporaneous evidence to support it makes clear that he is
`
`unable to testify accurately from the perspective of a POSITA back then.
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti failed to make up for his lack of contemporaneous
`
`experience or understanding of the topics at issue by a review of literature
`
`available to a POSITA at the critical date (or by any other means), since he relied
`
`almost exclusively on exhibits that post-date the ’634 Patent’s earliest priority date
`
`by several years and some by one and two decades, as described above. (Exhibits
`
`2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and 2033.) While Dr. Shahbakhti may claim to be
`
`opining from the perspective of a POSITA at the critical date, it’s unclear how Dr.
`
`Shahbakhti can do so without any information actually from that time period
`
`(whether from his own experience, research, or otherwise). Exclusion is therefore
`
`the only appropriate remedy because it is not possible to discern how Dr.
`
`Shahbakhti may have mentally parsed those references from years and decades
`
`after the critical date when providing his opinions from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA at the critical date. He certainly did not shed any light on that in his
`
`depositions as noted above.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, and consistent with their motion to exclude
`
`in IPR2020-00994, Petitioners respectfully request exclusion of Exhibits 2016,
`
`2018, 2020, 2022-2024, 2028, and 2033.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 19, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion To Exclude, IPR2020-01386
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), I certify that the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Motion To Exclude was served on October 19, 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
`IPR36351-0018IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Vincent J. Galluzzo/
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`