`May 11, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`
`Exhibit No. Descriptions
`Declaration of Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija
`2001
`Cray, Britannica Online Encyclopedia
`2002
`Declaration of Brandon Freeman dated 10/25/18
`2003
`SRC Labs LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Microsoft
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR, Dkt. 125 (W.D. Wash. Oct.
`25, 2018)
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint For Patent Infringement in FG SRC
`LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas), filed
`April 24, 2020
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement in
`FG SRC LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D.
`Texas), filed April 24, 2020
`Declaration of Mark Wollgast dated 09/10/18
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2018-0195
`COTS Journal, UAVs Lead Push for Embedded Supercomputing
`Press Release: SRC Computers Chosen by Lockheed Martin for
`U.S. Army Program
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt, Exhibit A, IEEE Xplore:
`Advanced Search
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt, Exhibit B, IEEE Xplore:
`Advanced Search Results
`Declaration Of Ryan Kastner, Ph.D. In Support Of FG SRC
`LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in FG SRC LLC v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas), filed April 24,
`2020
`Peter McMahon, High Performance Reconfigurable Computing for
`Science and Engineering Applications (Thesis Oct. 2006).
`Caliga, Delivering Acceleration: The Potential for Increased HPC
`Application Performance Using Reconfigurable Logic
`D. A. Buell, D. Caliga, J. P. Davis, G. Quan, “The DARPA
`boolean equation benchmark on a reconfigurable computer,”
`
`2009
`2009-1
`
`2009-2
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`Exhibit No. Descriptions
`Proceedings of the Military and Aerospace Programmable Logic
`Devices (MAPLD) Conference, Washington, DC, 8-10 September
`2004
`El-Araby, The Promise of High-Performance Reconfigurable
`Computing
`FG SRC LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in FG SRC
`LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas),
`filed April 24, 2020
`Kerr Machine Co. d/b/a Kerr Pumps v. Vulcan Industrial
`Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00200, Text Order dated Aug. 2, 2020
`(W.D. Tex.)
`MultiMedia Content Mgmt LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., No. 6:18-
`cv-00207, Dkt. 73 (W.D. Tex.)
`Solas OLED v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00514, Text Order
`dated June 23, 2020
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 28 (W.D. Tex. July 31, 2020)
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 24 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2020)
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 12 (W.D. Tex., June 14, 2020)
`Email from J. Yi to Counsel (Aug. 3, 2020)
`FG SRC LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00834, Dkt. 48 (W.D.
`Tex. Nov. 23, 2020) (Amended Schedule)
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution
`LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00147, Text Order dated July 22, 2020 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`Solas OLED v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00515, Text Order
`dated Jun. 23, 2020
`2019-07-11 - DirectStream MSFT - Huppenthal Declaration
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s April 14, 2021 Order (Paper 18), Patent Owner hereby
`
`submits its opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) (Paper 21).
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER MISCHARACTERIZES THE CONTROLLING
`LAW
`Petitioner suggests that the only consideration for a request under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123(a) is whether the submission is timely and relevant. Paper 21 at 12-13. The
`
`Federal Circuit, however, has flatly rejected that position in a precedential opinion:
`
`“Requiring admission of supplemental information so long as it was timely
`
`submitted and relevant to the IPR would cut against this mandate [to assure efficient
`
`and timely administration of IPRs] and alter the intended purpose of IPR
`
`proceedings.” See Redline Detection, LLC, v. Star Environtech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435,
`
`443-445 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Indeed, concerns such as a petitioner intentionally holding
`
`back evidence, and promoting the goal of having petitioners “set forth their best
`
`grounds of unpatentability and supporting evidence in their petitions” must be taken
`
`into account. Id. It is a question of fundamental fairness. Here, Petitioner does not
`
`even try to prove the evidence was unavailable, and even a cursory review
`
`demonstrates it is comprised of opinions and evidence that was indisputably
`
`available to a diligent Petitioner.
`
`The supplemental information must, of course, be relevant. 37 CFR
`
`§ 42.123(a). Petitioner ignores, however, that information that does nothing more
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`than demonstrate circumstances after the applicable date is not relevant. Clearone,
`
`Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 5 (PTAB Nov.
`
`6, 2019).
`
`Moreover, the information must not merely substitute new evidence to bolster
`
`deficiencies in the timely presented evidence. “Permitting a petitioner to supplement
`
`the record in a manner that effectively changes the evidence originally presented in
`
`a petition is not in accord with the statutory requirement that the petition identify
`
`‘with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`
`each claim.’” Yamaha Golf Car Co. v. Club Car, LLC, IPR2017-02141, 2018 WL
`
`6428205 at *3 (PTAB Dec. 4, 2018). Thus, even where the request is timely and the
`
`information is relevant, voluminous additional submissions and declarations that
`
`alter positions are properly rejected. Id.
`
`All of these factors must be considered, and here their consideration requires
`
`denial.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER MISCHARACTERIZES THE SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE
`To properly adjudicate Petitioner’s motion, its mischaracterizations of its
`
`proposed supplemental evidence must first be corrected.
`
`A. Exhibit 1027: MacPherson Declaration
`Petitioner proffers Mr. MacPherson’s testimony to support its allegations that
`
`the Zhang, Gupta, and Chien references on which it bases its petition were
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`electronically available (through IEEE Xplore) and distributed at conferences.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Mr. MacPherson’s testimony shows “the date of publication
`
`and additional publication data” of the asserted references “as populated by metadata
`
`created and maintained as part of IEEE’s standard business practices.” Paper 21 at
`
`4. Petitioner also claims that Mr. MacPherson “confirms” IEEE’s practice of making
`
`copies of conference papers available “no later than the last day of a conference.”
`
`Id. These characterizations grossly misrepresent the actual testimony.
`
`Mr. MacPherson only testifies that, as a custodian of records, he was able to
`
`identify and retrieve the Zhang, Gupta, and Chien references as of March 19, 2021.
`
`Ex. 1027 at 2. That, of course, is almost 18 years after the priority date. Mr.
`
`MacPherson offers no indication of the extent the references were available in 2003,
`
`such as how they were indexed for searching. Mr. MacPherson also does not state
`
`how long he has been with IEEE. There is, thus, no evidence that he has personal
`
`knowledge as to how the Xplore database worked in 2003, or how papers were
`
`distributed in 1997-2000. He, therefore, does not testify from personal knowledge
`
`that the references were actually distributed as alleged by Petitioner. See Ex. 1027.
`
`Finally, Mr. MacPherson does not state that he was previously unable to
`
`provide his testimony. It must, therefore, be presumed that Mr. MacPherson’s
`
`testimony could have been timely submitted by Petitioner. It simply was not.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Exhibit 1028: McCarrier Declaration
`Exhibit 1028 is a new declaration attaching new copies of two references,
`
`Zhang and Gupta. According to Petitioner, Ms. McCarrier’s declaration purportedly
`
`“support[s] the chain-of-custody of additional references that were retrieved at Mr.
`
`Munford’s direction.” Paper 21 at 5. Petitioner is again less than forthcoming.
`
`Ms. McCarrier, an employee of Petitioner’s counsel, testifies that copies of
`
`the Zhang and Gupta references (but not Chien) were retrieved by unnamed staff at
`
`other libraries and sent to her “as a pdf.” Ex. 1028 at 3. This was done because “the
`
`safety protocols relating to COVID-19 continue[d]” at the time of the declaration.
`
`Id. at 2. None of those protocols were produced and no witness from the libraries
`
`offers testimony that such protocols exist or existed.
`
`As an employee of Petitioner’s counsel, Ms. McCarrier was presumably
`
`available to assist with retrieving additional copies of the references at the time
`
`Petitioner’s petition was filed. In addition, as the express language of Ms.
`
`McCarrier’s declaration indicates, the COVID-19 safety protocols were in place at
`
`the time of the petition (i.e., they “continue”). Therefore, these additional copies of
`
`the references being submitted now must have been equally available months ago.
`
`Moreover, while the copies Ms. McCarrier received were apparently in the library’s
`
`possession as of March 31, 2021, there is no indication of when either library first
`
`received the reference or made it available, which is the key inquiry. See id. at 2-3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Exhibit 1029: Schnell Declaration
`Mr. Schnell’s declaration is another new declaration that includes new copies
`
`of the Gupta and Chien references.1 As with the other new declarations, Petitioner
`
`seeks to obfuscate important points regarding Mr. Schnell’s declaration.
`
`Like Ms. McCarrier, Mr. Schnell purportedly “support[s] the chain-of-
`
`custody of additional references that were retrieved at Mr. Munford’s direction.”
`
`Paper 21 at 5. Mr. Schnell, also an employee of Petitioner’s counsel, testifies that
`
`he retrieved a copy of the Gupta and Chien (but not Zhang) references from the
`
`University of Texas library. Ex. 1029 at 2. Mr. Schnell does not indicate when he
`
`retrieved the copies being submitted with his declaration and provides no suggestion
`
`that he could not have obtained the copies for submission with the petition. Id.
`
`Moreover, the earliest date stamp on the Gupta reference is June 3, 2004, a year after
`
`the June 18, 2003 priority date. Compare Ex. 1029 at 6 with Paper 1 at 13. The “Best
`
`Evidence,” the document itself, indicates the Gupta reference is not prior art. Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 1002-1003.
`
`D. Exhibit 1030: Gupta Second Declaration
`Petitioner asserts that in his Second Declaration, Dr. Gupta “further confirms,
`
`based on his personal knowledge, that each article [Zhang, Gupta, and Chien] was
`
`
`1 The new copies are included as “appendices” to the declaration. The “appendices”
`that Petitioner’s witnesses attach to their declarations are actually additional
`exhibits, albeit not numbered according to the Board’s standard practice.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`included in the IEEE printed publication that was distributed to attendees of each
`
`respective conference, and that each article was subsequently made available online
`
`and in libraries.” Paper 21 at 5. Petitioner’s characterization of Dr. Gupta’s new
`
`testimony as mere “further confirmation” is a disingenuous attempt to disguise the
`
`substantial alteration of his testimony.
`
`First, the Second Gupta Declaration (Ex. 1030) expands Dr. Gupta’s
`
`testimony from 10 pages consisting of 26 paragraphs and 2 exhibits to an additional
`
`67 pages consisting of 13 new paragraphs and 4 new exhibits. Moreover, in his
`
`original declaration, Dr. Gupta stated only that he “believes” the references were
`
`distributed at the respective conference based on his general experience in attending
`
`conferences and the “general practice” in the scientific industry, not that he has first-
`
`hand knowledge about the actual distribution of the references. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 18-19,
`
`21-22, 24-25. He likewise never stated that he obtained any copies from the IEEE
`
`Xplore website or that he was familiar with how the website is structured or operates.
`
`Id., ¶¶ 19, 22, 25. Patent Owner has expressly raised all the foregoing issues with
`
`Dr. Gupta’s testimony. See Paper 16.
`
`Now, even though it is more remote in time, Dr. Gupta states in his Second
`
`Declaration a miraculous clarification to his memory, and “confirm[s] based on [his]
`
`personal knowledge” that each reference was “included in the IEEE printed
`
`publication that was distributed to the conference attendees during the conference.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1030, ¶¶ 5, 8, 11. For the Chien reference, Dr. Gupta now states definitively that
`
`he “received a printed copy of … published papers no later than the last day” of the
`
`conference at which the Chien reference was presented. These affirmative
`
`statements are distinctly different than the equivocal statements of “belief” to which
`
`Dr. Gupta originally testified.
`
`Regarding the Zhang and Gupta references, Dr. Gupta can only state in his
`
`Second Declaration that they were part of conference materials “that were typically
`
`printed in advance so they could be distributed at the conference, as it would have
`
`been impractical to mail the conference presentations to all the conference
`
`participants.” Id., ¶¶ 8, 11. Dr. Gupta does not state that he has actual knowledge of
`
`distribution of the references or that he is aware of what the IEEE actually did in
`
`1996 and 1997, the years of the relevant conferences. See id., ¶¶ 7-11.
`
`E. Exhibit 1031: Munford Second Declaration
`Mr. Munford’s original declaration consisted of 46 paragraphs, his CV, and 9
`
`appendices for a total of 60 pages. See Ex. 1012. Mr. Munford’s Second Declaration
`
`consists of 90 paragraphs, his CV, and 34 appendices for a total of 293 pages. See
`
`Ex. 1031. Petitioner seeks to downplay the substantial enlargement of Mr.
`
`Munford’s testimony, see Paper 21 at 10, but under any metric, Mr. Munford’s
`
`Second Declaration is many times larger, with approximately 5 times more exhibits
`
`than his original declaration.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner misrepresents Mr. Munford’s Second Declaration in other ways as
`
`well. Petitioner asserts that Mr. Munford “reviewed library copies of each reference
`
`that were previously unavailable due to COVID-19 related library restrictions.”
`
`Paper 21 at 5. However, in his Second Declaration, Mr. Munford reiterates that he
`
`has been dealing with the same COVID-19 restrictions, namely his inability to visit
`
`libraries in person and obtain a physical copy of the references, that were in effect at
`
`the time of his initial declaration. Ex. 1031 at 8. He, therefore, “identified materials
`
`at other libraries throughout the country and instructed individuals at [Petitioner’s
`
`counsel] to retrieve those documents for [his] review.” Id. Because the same
`
`COVID-19 restrictions have been in effect since before his first declaration, the
`
`additional copies of the references Mr. Munford now submits could have been
`
`retrieved based on his instruction months ago before the petition was filed.
`
`Petitioner represents that much of Mr. Munford’s Second Declaration is “prior
`
`testimony as context.” Paper 21 at 10. That testimony is subject to the same material
`
`infirmities Patent Owner identified and to which Petitioner seeks to respond with its
`
`supplemental submission. See Paper 16. For example, Mr. Munford still cannot
`
`confirm when the references were shelved, indexed, and available for distribution at
`
`the various libraries he cites. The new testimony contains substantial adoption and
`
`restatement of the declaration testimony of Mr. MacPherson, Ms. McCarrier, Mr.
`
`Schnell, and the Gupta Second Declaration. Ex. 1031 at 9-10, 15-16 and 20-21. Mr.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Munford’s additional testimony is, therefore, subject to the same limitations and
`
`infirmities as those other declarations and their accompanying exhibits.
`
`RUNS
`SUBMISSION
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`III. PETITIONER’S
`COUNTER TO THE JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE
`RESOLUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS
`Other than its skewed representation of the substance of its proposed
`
`submission, Petitioner’s brief is mainly devoted to the argument that its motion
`
`should be granted because of the timing of its request. See Paper 21 at 2, 6-9, 11-14.
`
`The form-over-substance approach
`
`that Petitioner advocates, however,
`
`is
`
`subordinate to the concern about guarding against a Petitioner taking a “wait-and-
`
`see” approach until it has the advantage of seeing Patent Owner’s and the Board’s
`
`positions regarding the veracity of its evidence.
`
`Two cases illustrate the point. In Redline Detection, the petitioner moved to
`
`submit four pieces of evidence as supplemental information, which the Board
`
`denied. 811 F.3d at 441. The proposed supplemental information included was a 60-
`
`page expert declaration and two patents that had not been relied on in the petition.
`
`Id. at 443. The petitioner conceded that, as a matter of its convenience (i.e., cost
`
`savings), it had not submitted the extensive declaration and patents before. Id. The
`
`Federal Circuit found that the Board properly denied petitioner’s motion because
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`rather than a short supplementation, the proposed supplement was a new declaration
`
`being submitted de novo. Id. at 447-448.2
`
`In Yamaha Golf, the petitioner sought to submit as supplemental information
`
`multiple expert declarations and multiple prior art references “reflecting the state of
`
`the art” as of the priority date. 2018 WL 6428205 at *1. The proposed submission
`
`included a 256-page declaration with 70 pages of new testimony that petitioner
`
`proposed to substitute for a 183-page declaration submitted with the petition. Id. at
`
`*3. The Board, following and applying Redline Detection, denied petitioner’s
`
`motion because it found that the voluminous new filings “amounts to a substantial
`
`change” in the original showing in the petition. Id. As the Board noted, “the sheer
`
`volume of new evidence that [petitioner] proposes to submit renders the request
`
`immediately suspect. … And, perhaps most egregious, the expert goes from relying
`
`on eleven (11) documents in support of his original testimony to relying on twenty-
`
`nine (29) documents to support his new testimony.” Id.
`
`These decisions are directly on point here. As illustrated below, Petitioner is
`
`attempting to bloat the record with voluminous new filings and exhibits that
`
`undeniably could have been produced earlier and/or are irrelevant, and is doing so
`
`only after having studied the Board’s and Patent Owner’s positions.
`
`
`2 Redline Detection also distinguishes the very same authority relied on by Petitioner
`here. Compare id. (distinguishing Pacific Market Int’l, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC,
`IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2014)) with Paper 21 at 11-12.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The MacPherson Declaration Is Irrelevant And Untimely
`The MacPherson Declaration (Ex. 1027) does nothing more than demonstrate
`
`that IEEE’s custodian of records can locate the Zhang, Gupta, and Chien references
`
`in 2021. Mr. MacPherson does not state that he has any personal knowledge as to
`
`the facts and circumstances regarding the references as of June 18, 2003, the priority
`
`date. See Part II(A), supra. His testimony as to the availability of these references
`
`18 years after the fact is irrelevant. Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 5.
`
`Moreover, the exhibits Petitioner now seeks to introduce through Mr. MacPherson
`
`were available well before the petition was filed and Petitioner has not explained
`
`why the declaration and exhibits were not obtained earlier. See Part II(A), supra.
`
`They are, therefore, untimely and prejudicial.
`
`Supplemental submission of Exhibit 1027 should, therefore, be denied. See
`
`Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 8; Redline Detection, 811 F.3d at 443-449.
`
`B. The Second Gupta Declaration Changes The Evidence And Is
`Otherwise Irrelevant And Untimely
`The Second Gupta Declaration (Ex. 1030) expands Dr. Gupta’s testimony
`
`from 10 pages consisting of 26 paragraphs and 2 exhibits to an additional 67 pages
`
`consisting of 13 paragraphs and 4 exhibits. See Part II(D), supra. This is at least
`
`double what was submitted with the petition. Moreover, Dr. Gupta now claims to be
`
`testifying based on actual first-hand knowledge, rather than the speculative “beliefs”
`
`on which he based his original testimony. See id. This sudden clarity comes, of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`course, only after both the Board and Patent Owner pointed out the speculative
`
`nature of his testimony. This about-face is the precise change in evidence that is
`
`prohibited. See Yamaha Golf, 2018 WL 6428205 at *3. The Rule of Law and due
`
`process do not allow witnesses to be coached to “say what they need to say” in sham
`
`declarations crafted to overcome objections and deficiencies pointed out by
`
`opponents. See Brand Management, Inc. v. Menard, 1998 WL 15241 n. 5 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998) (sham declarations should be prevented).
`
`Regarding the Zhang and Gupta references, the Second Gupta Declaration
`
`does nothing more than reproduce copies as they exist in 2021, without any
`
`indication of personal knowledge about their availability in 2003. This testimony is,
`
`therefore, irrelevant. Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 5.
`
`In addition to changing the evidence, Dr. Gupta’s new testimony regarding
`
`the Chien reference could have been presented earlier. He claims to be presenting a
`
`copy of the reference from his personal files but provides no explanation as to why
`
`that could not have been submitted with the petition. See Part II(D), supra.
`
`Supplemental submission of Exhibit 1030 should, therefore, be denied.
`
`Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 8; Redline Detection, 811 F.3d at 443-449.
`
`C. The Second Munford Declaration Changes The Evidence And Is
`Otherwise Irrelevant And Untimely
`The Second Munford Declaration (Ex. 1031) suffers from the same issues as
`
`the Second Gupta Declaration and the other declarations on which it depends. In his
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Declaration, Mr. Munford almost doubles the volume of his testimony,
`
`increases the number of attached exhibits almost 5-fold, and presents a total of over
`
`3 times the number of pages as his original declaration. See Part II(E), supra. This
`
`represents a substantial change in his testimony. Indeed, the sheer volume of the
`
`increase, including a reliance on 5 times more exhibits, is “immediately suspect.”
`
`Yamaha Golf, 2018 WL 6428205 at *3.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Munford’s supplement is not relevant because, like the
`
`declarations on which he relies, all that he has demonstrated is the availability of the
`
`Zhang, Gupta, and Chien references in 2021. See Part II(E), supra. That is well after
`
`the pertinent date and is, thus, irrelevant. Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 5.
`
`Finally, Mr. Munford provides no logical explanation why this voluminous
`
`testimony and exhibits could not have been submitted earlier. He could have
`
`requested assistance from counsel’s employees earlier because the COVID-19
`
`circumstances at the time of his original declaration were, according to his new
`
`testimony, the same as they were on March 31, 2021 when he signed the Second
`
`Declaration. See id. at 8.
`
`Supplemental submission of Exhibit 1031 should, therefore, be denied.
`
`Yamaha Golf, 2018 WL 6428205 at *3; Redline Detection, 811 F.3d at 443-449.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The McCarrier And Schnell Declarations Are Irrelevant And
`Untimely
`The McCarrier and Schnell Declarations (Ex. 1028-1029), like the
`
`MacPherson Declaration, establish no more than the availability of the Zhang,
`
`Gupta, and Chien references in certain libraries in 2021. See Part II(B)-(C), supra.
`
`Thus, like Mr. MacPherson, the after-the-fact testimony presented by these
`
`witnesses is irrelevant. Clearone, IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 5.
`
`There is also no indication as to why Ms. McCarrier and Mr. Schnell, both of
`
`whom are employees of Petitioner’s counsel, could not have presented their
`
`testimony earlier. The COVID-19 circumstances cited by Ms. McCarrier were the
`
`same at the time of her declaration as existed at the time of the petition, and Mr.
`
`Schnell is entirely silent as to when he obtained the copies of the Gupta and Chien
`
`references or why he could not have obtained them earlier. See Part II(B)-(C), supra.
`
`Supplemental Exhibits 1028 and 1029 should therefore be denied. Clearone,
`
`IPR2019-00683, Paper 32 at 8; Redline Detection, 811 F.3d at 443-449.
`
`E. Allowing Submission Will Prejudice Patent Owner And The
`Proceedings
`Petitioner is dismissive of the prejudice the supplemental submission of the
`
`irrelevant and untimely information will be to Patent Owner and these proceedings.
`
`See Paper 21 at 9-14. Petitioner’s position smacks of the precise arrogance and
`
`prohibited behavior the Rules are designed to guard against.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Efficiency includes not only time but costs. Petitioner is proposing to double
`
`or triple the testimony of Dr. Gupta and Mr. Munford alone. Moreover, Petitioner is
`
`seeking to bloat the record with multiple additional 3 copies of the references, and
`
`an additional 2 copies of the Chien reference. Notably, these additional copies
`
`introduce inconsistencies, such as the 2004 version of the Gupta reference attached
`
`to the Schnell Declaration. See Part II(C), supra. It is naive to suggest that the
`
`needless multiplication of exhibits will not sow confusion and, thus, increase costs
`
`throughout the life of these proceedings, including appeal. These facts must be
`
`balanced against the extent to which the supplemental information will inform,
`
`rather than obfuscate, the record. As detailed above, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`supplemental information is consistently irrelevant to the circumstances in or around
`
`the pertinent date, merely duplicative, and inexplicably untimely.
`
`Allowing the record to be supplemented with such information will be
`
`counter-productive to the efficient administration of these proceedings. Petitioner’s
`
`motion should, therefore, be denied. Yamaha Golf, 2018 WL 6428205 at *3.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental
`
`Information should be denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Jay P. Kesan
`
`DiMuroGinsberg, PC-
`DGKeyIP Group
`Jay P. Kesan, Reg. No. 37,488
`Cecil E. Key (admitted pro hac vice)
`Henning Schmidt (admission pro hac
`vice pending)
`1750 Tyson’s Blvd., Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`Telephone: 703-289-5118
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`ckey@dimuro.com
`hschmidt@dimuro.com
`
`Ari B. Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: 214-593-9110
`Facsimile: 214-593-9111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on May 12, 2021, a complete copy of Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(a) was filed electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s PTABE2E System and provided, via electronic service, to the Petitioner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Brian C. Nash, brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Ste. 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`Evan Finkel, evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`725 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2800
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
`
`Matthew W. Hindman, matthew.hindman@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`2550 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jay P. Kesan
`Jay P. Kesan
`
`
`
`17
`
`