`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent RE45415
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) seeks the following Additional Discovery1:
`
`(1) Laboratory notebooks and other documents containing or
`
`reflecting the protocols used in connection with the experiments
`
`considered by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Tremblay related to his
`
`consultation with Petitioner;
`
`(2) Documents identifying, including, or referring to any instructions,
`
`suggestions, or advice provided to Dr. Tremblay concerning the
`
`design and/or structure of the purported physical embodiments;
`
`(3) Documents identifying, including, or referring to any instructions,
`
`suggestions, or advice provided to Dr. Tremblay concerning the
`
`parameters for operation of the purported physical embodiments; and
`
`(4) Test reports or other raw data from any experiments conducted by,
`
`at the direction of, or for consideration by Dr. Tremblay that analyze
`
`the impact of any parameter that is the subject of the claims of the
`
`’415 patent.
`
`II. Background of Dispute
`
`
`
`Grounds 1 and 7 are based on Petitioner’s arguments that Wikey and Davies
`
`inherently anticipate a number of instituted claims of the ’415 patent. All instituted
`
`
`1 To the extent Petitioner possesses information that is inconsistent with the data
`
`provided in support of its petition, such as information that unspecified variables
`
`impact bubble formation and size, that information is a matter of Routine
`
`Discovery and PO respectfully requests the Board order Petitioner to produce it.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`claims require the formation of micro- and nanobubbles using electrolysis, but
`
`neither Wikey nor Davies teach or suggest the formation of bubbles. As a result,
`
`Petitioner, through its expert Dr. Mario Tremblay, fabricated and tested devices it
`
`contends are based on the Wikey and Davies references. Paper 1 at 22-29, 52-61;
`
`Ex. 1103, ¶¶39-69, 111-57. Petitioner contends that these experiments demonstrate
`
`that the devices and operating parameters taught by Wikey and Davies inherently
`
`yield micro- and nanobubbles and so inherently anticipate the claims.
`
`
`
`The problem is that every one of Petitioner’s experiments is based on a
`
`fictional embodiment of Wikey and Davies. In performing these tests, Dr.
`
`Tremblay had to select a combination of structural and operational parameters that
`
`are not taught by the references. Instead, each of these references describe ranges
`
`of these variables without teaching an embodiment that combines them in the
`
`fashion that Dr. Tremblay did. And, as PO explained in its Preliminary Response,
`
`these variables directly impact both the formation of bubbles and the size thereof.
`
`See Paper 8 at 34, 39-40; Ex. 2109 at ¶¶ 55-57, 61-66. All of the requested
`
`discovery at issue is directly relevant to this fundamental, disputed issue: the
`
`impact of Dr. Tremblay’s selection of unspecified variables on his results.
`
`Despite the direct relevance of the requested information, Petitioner refuses
`
`to produce some documents responsive to Requests 1 and 4, and any information
`
`responsive to Requests 2 and 3. Ex. 2115.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`III. Requests 1 and 4 are in the Interest of Justice
`
`Requests 1 and 4 seek documents concerning all of the protocols and data
`
`for any experiments that Dr. Tremblay considered in forming his opinions that
`
`assessed the formation of bubbles using electrolysis as required by the claims. It is
`
`unclear how Dr. Tremblay could have been privy to such information without
`
`considering it in forming his opinions in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board
`
`has routinely granted requests to such. See Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical
`
`& Solder Industries Pte Ltd., IPR2019-00377, Paper 22, at 3-4, 16 (PTAB Oct. 21,
`
`2019); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan Inc., IPR2016-01127, Paper 28, at
`
`3-4 (PTAB May 31, 2017); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00043,
`
`Paper 27, at 2-5 (PTAB June 21, 2013).
`
`Petitioner has agreed to produce some information responsive to these
`
`requests but has refused to produce information about any other experiments Dr.
`
`Tremblay is aware of involving “attempts” to reproduce other prior art not
`
`disclosed in IPR2021-00602. Ex. 2115. Further, Petitioner has refused to confirm
`
`that Dr. Tremblay was unaware of additional experiments assessing the formation
`
`and size of bubbles. Id. This suggests Dr. Tremblay did consider additional
`
`experiments. Petitioner should not be permitted to shield such data.
`
`This information will be useful to assessing Petitioner’s inherent anticipation
`
`argument. A reference only inherently anticipates if “the reference discloses prior
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation”. Transclean Corp. v.
`
`Bridgewood Servs., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A reference that
`
`discloses a range does not anticipate when the claimed invention “work[s]
`
`differently at different points within the prior art range”. Osram Sylvania, Inc. v.
`
`Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is not enough
`
`that a certain result may be achieved. Cont'l Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
`
`1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`In making and testing his alleged reproductions, Dr. Tremblay chose
`
`structural and operational values within various ranges described by the references,
`
`and he also chose values for some parameters that are not disclosed in the
`
`references at all. To the extent the selection of different structural and operational
`
`variables impacts the formation and size of bubbles yielded by electrolysis
`
`devices—whether or not those devices were intended to be “reproductions” of
`
`Davies or Wikey—the results of those experiments will be useful to show that
`
`Wikey and Davies do not inherently yield micro- and nanobubbles.
`
`
`
`All five Garmin factors support requiring Petitioner to produce these
`
`documents. First, there is more than a mere possibility that something useful will
`
`be discovered. As described above, data demonstrating that the unspecified
`
`structural and operational parameters of Wikey and Davies impact bubble size will
`
`refute inherent anticipation. Ex. 2115. For reasons like this, 37 C.F.R. § 42.65
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`requires disclosure of any “any other information necessary for the Board to
`
`evaluate [a technical test] and data.” Petitioner argues that evaluation of uncited
`
`prior art is irrelevant. Ex. 2115. But Petitioner’s line is arbitrary and ignores the
`
`scientific process. An expert cannot ignore information about the impact of a
`
`variable just because it was assessed in a different experiment. The PTAB has
`
`found that an expert’s evaluation of other prior art references is discoverable.
`
`Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, IPR2019-00627, Paper 59 at 4
`
`(PTAB Dec. 12, 2019).
`
`Second, these requests seek only factual information related to electrolysis,
`
`not litigation theories. Third, PO cannot generate this information by other means.
`
`PO does not know what additional experiments Dr. Tremblay considered that
`
`Petitioner appears to be withholding. Fourth and fifth, the requests are easily
`
`understandable and not burdensome because they are limited to the protocols and
`
`data Dr. Tremblay considered.
`
`Petitioner argues these documents are prohibited by disclosure under Federal
`
`Rule 26. Ex. 2115 at 7. It is unclear how Rule 26 relates to PO’s request for
`
`additional discovery. But regardless, Rule 26 requires the production of
`
`information Dr. Tremblay considered whether or not Petitioner believes it is
`
`related to the Petition. Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG, 292
`
`F.R.D. 97, 110-15 (D.D.C. 2013) (ordering production of documents related to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`expert’s testing even though it was outside of the scope of the opinion).2
`
`III. Requests 2 and 3 are in the Interest of Justice
`
`Requests 2 and 3 seek instructions that were provided to Dr. Tremblay
`
`concerning the selection of structural and operational parameters for his
`
`“reproductions” of Wikey and Davies. As described above, Dr. Tremblay chose a
`
`particular combination of parameters that are never described by Wikey or Davies.
`
`To the extent Dr. Tremblay was encouraged to select a particular variable it would
`
`indicate that his experiments were biased—“picked and chosen”—to achieve a
`
`particular outcome. See also In re Arkeley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (C.C.P.A. 1972)
`
`(“picking and choosing . . . has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation
`
`rejection.”); In re Ruschig, 343 F.2d 965, 974 (C.C.P.A. 1965). The PTAB has
`
`required production of these types of instructions in other cases. Apple Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00377, Paper 22, at 4-5 (in the interests of justice to allow discovery of
`
`the directions provided to a testing laboratory).
`
`All five Garmin factors support requiring Petitioner to produce these
`
`documents. First, there is more than a mere possibility that something useful will
`
`
`2 Petitioner also generally refuses to produce documents that fall outside the scope
`
`of Rule 26 while also refusing to specify what it is withholding on this basis. This
`
`vague objection should be rejected.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`be discovered. It will be highly useful for PO to show that specific instructions and
`
`recommendations were provided to Dr. Tremblay for his creation of alleged
`
`“reproductions.” For example, if Petitioner instructed or suggested Dr. Tremblay
`
`use the most narrow electrode gap included in the range disclosed by those
`
`references or use a particular electrode size that would provide evidence that his
`
`“reproductions” were not objectively designed, but biased by an outside source.
`
`Second, these requests only seek instructions and suggestions for creating
`
`reproductions that Dr. Tremblay considered and relied upon in this proceeding.
`
`The requests seek information relating to the scientific process, not Petitioner’s
`
`litigation theories. Third, PO cannot generate this nonpublic information by other
`
`means. Fourth and fifth, the requests are easily understandable and not
`
`burdensome because they are limited to the instructions and suggestions Dr.
`
`Tremblay considered in designing his alleged “reproductions”.
`
`PO argues that this information is not discoverable under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 26. But the Federal Rules expressly allow for discovery of facts,
`
`data, and assumptions the expert considered. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4)(C)(ii)-(iii).
`
`Moreover, the PTAB has found that instructions like those sought by this request
`
`fall are not protected work product. Apple Inc., IPR2019-00377, Paper 22, at 4-5. It
`
`would be wholly unjust for Petitioner to instruct Dr. Tremblay to use specific
`
`variables and thereby bias the results, and yet shield that direction from PO.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dated: October 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ J. Derek Vandenburgh
`J. Derek Vandenburgh
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, &
`Lindquist, P.A.
`Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`225 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`undersigned certifies that on October 4, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`R. Scott Johnson (Reg. No. 45,792)
`Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
`505 E. Grand Ave., Suite 200
`Des Moines, IA 50309
`Phone: (515) 242-8930
`Fax: (515) 242-8950
`Email: RSJohnson@fredlaw.com
`
`Adam R. Steinert
`Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
`200 South 6th Street, Suite 4000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 492-7000
`Fax: (612) 492-7797
`Email: asteinert@fredlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`/s/ J. Derek Vandenburgh
`J. Derek Vandenburgh
`(Lead Counsel)
`
`
`