`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALIVECOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`Patent 10,595,731
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully requests that the Board deny the
`
`Patent Owner AliveCor Inc.’s (“AliveCor”) motion to exclude Exhibits APPLE-
`
`1060-68 and APPLE-1072-85 (Paper No. 34), and decide the patentability of the
`
`claims at issue on the full record presented to the Board. As set forth below, each
`
`of the complained-of exhibits was submitted to the Board in compliance with
`
`PTAB rules and the Rules of Evidence.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Dr. Stultz’s Prior Testimony at the ITC Is Admissible
`AliveCor first asks this Board to exclude prior testimony from an expert who
`
`testified before the ITC on behalf of Apple—Dr. Stultz. According to AliveCor,
`
`Dr. Stultz’s testimony is hearsay and should be excluded, because—despite never
`
`actually asking to take his deposition after his expert report and other testimony
`
`was properly submitted in compliance with 37 CFR § 42.53, and despite the fact
`
`that AliveCor both deposed and cross-examined Dr. Stultz about his opinions at the
`
`ITC—Dr. Stultz was not deposed again in the present proceeding.
`
`As the Board has previously recognized, this is exactly the type of argument
`
`that puts form over substance to an absurd degree. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Tela
`
`Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01255, Paper 79 at 77 (PTAB Jan. 26, 2021) (finding
`
`“limited merit” to such a contention). Indeed, the Board has previously noted that,
`
`even though a declaration may have previously been filed in another matter and
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`may bear a different caption, the difference in caption “is artificial” if (as here) the
`
`declaration was also “filed in this proceeding, as if they were prepared for this
`
`matter.” Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc., IPR2016-00332, Paper 29 at 80-81 (PTAB
`
`June 22, 2017).1 This is particularly true where, as here, the “Patent Owner could
`
`have sought to cross-examine” Dr. Stultz, but didn’t, id.; or where the Patent
`
`Owner could have cited portions of its previous deposition and cross-examination
`
`of Dr. Stultz from the ITC proceeding. This Board should not allow AliveCor to
`
`make an apparent strategic choice to sit on its hands regarding Dr. Stultz’s
`
`deposition, manufacture its own evidentiary issues, and then point to those
`
`supposed evidentiary issues as a reason for exclusion.2 Thus, Dr. Stultz’s prior
`
`
`1 See also 37 CFR § 42.53(b)(1)(“[u]ncompelled direct testimony may be taken at
`
`any time to support a petition, motion, opposition, or reply”); 37 CFR § 42.2
`
`(broadly defining the form for uncompelled direct testimony – “Affidavit means
`
`affidavit or declaration under § 1.68 of this chapter. A transcript of an ex parte
`
`deposition or a declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746 may be used as an affidavit.”)
`
`2 These facts alone distinguish the cases cited by AliveCor, where there was no
`
`showing that the proponent of the evidence had the ability to make witnesses
`
`available for deposition. See, e.g., Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`
`testimony is admissible under 37 CFR § 42.53.
`
`In any event, AliveCor also misses the mark as to the form they seek to put
`
`above substance. Dr. Stultz’s testimony is plainly admissible at least pursuant to
`
`FRE 804(b)(1) for exactly the same reasons that the Board considers any testimony
`
`offered by an expert in the form of an expert declaration or a deposition.
`
`This Board routinely and properly considers statements that are technically
`
`“hearsay” from experts, both in the form of declarations and deposition testimony.
`
`Per the rules of evidence, “hearsay” is a statement which (1) “the declarant does
`
`not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing;” and (2) “a party offers
`
`in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 801(c). So, for example, despite the fact that statements made in an expert
`
`declaration are not statements made “while testifying at the current … hearing,”
`
`the Board nonetheless considers these statements because the Board doesn’t allow
`
`for live testimony at an IPR hearing (thus all experts are “unavailable” to testify at
`
`the hearing because no legal process can procure their attendance) and because the
`
`Board’s rules provide for the opportunity to depose them. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`804(a)(5)(A) (unavailability); Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) (prior testimony).
`
`
`00637, Paper 98 at 11 (denying Patent Owner’s attempt to introduce testimony
`
`from employees of Petitioner where it made no attempt to subpoena them).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`The Federal Rules of Evidence draw no distinction between prior testimony
`
`offered in the same proceeding or another one. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1)
`
`(applies to sworn testimony, “whether given during the current proceeding or a
`
`different one”). This Board should not draw one either. The key question isn’t
`
`whether the testimony was offered in this proceeding, but rather whether (as the
`
`Rules of Evidence set forth) AliveCor had the opportunity and a similar motive to
`
`cross-examine the statements. Here, there can be no question that AliveCor did.
`
`AliveCor does not, and cannot, dispute, that Dr. Stultz offered testimony on
`
`validity, and in particular regarding a POSITA’s knowledge and understanding of
`
`machine learning, in the ITC; that AliveCor both deposed and cross-examined Dr.
`
`Stultz in that proceeding on those issues; and that AliveCor had the opportunity
`
`(which it didn’t pursue) to depose Dr. Stultz again in this IPR. Thus, Dr. Stultz’s
`
`prior testimony is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). See, e.g., Intel Corp.
`
`v. Tela Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01255, Paper 79 at 77 (PTAB Jan. 26, 2021)
`
`(“Exhibit 1071 is Dr. Auth’s ITC trial testimony. Patent Owner argues that Exhibit
`
`1071 is inadmissible hearsay” and “Petitioner argues that Exhibit 1071 … is
`
`admissible under FRE 804(b)(1);” “We find limited merit in Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude”); CostCo Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC, IPR2016-
`
`00038, Paper 68 at 10 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2017) (“Mr. Merkel’s former trial
`
`testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`Finally, Dr. Stultz’s testimony also is admissible pursuant to the “residual
`
`exception.” See Fed. R. Evid. 807. The testimony sought to be introduced is
`
`testimony given in another administrative proceeding against AliveCor. Indeed,
`
`much of the testimony sought to be offered is testimony elicited by AliveCor’s
`
`own lawyers (in deposition and cross-examination). There can be no question of
`
`its trustworthiness, or that it is probative of the limited purposes for which it is
`
`being offered, or that it is in the interests of justice for the Board to consider it. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807. Indeed, AliveCor itself deemed Dr. Stultz’s ITC testimony
`
`trustworthy and submitted a portion of it to support AliveCor’s arguments. The
`
`interests of justice, thus, compel the Board’s consideration of all of Dr. Stultz’s
`
`testimony, not just the portion self-selected by AliveCor—as the Board has
`
`recognized in very similar circumstances. See, e.g., Apple v. Virnetx, IPR2016-
`
`00332, Paper 29 at 81-82 (finding testimony from a parallel proceeding from an
`
`expert to be admissible per FRE 807).
`
`B. Apple’s Reply Exhibits Are Proper Reply Evidence
`AliveCor seeks (at 5) exclusion of numerous exhibits submitted with
`
`Apple’s replies because, in AliveCor’s view, Apple could have presented this
`
`evidence earlier. Respectfully, that is not what this Board’s rules provide. Under
`
`the Board’s rules, petitioners are allowed to submit reply argument and evidence
`
`provided it fairly responds to arguments made by patent owners or statements
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`made in an institution decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; see also AMC Multi-
`
`Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Pats., LLC, No. 2021-1051, 2021 WL 4470062, at *7
`
`(Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021) (“we have made clear that if the petition asserts that a
`
`claim requirement is met, provides a reason that the assertion is true, and cites
`
`evidentiary support for that reason, then reply material that fairly adds
`
`confirmation that the initially presented material does in fact support the assertion
`
`is not prohibited new material, but a proper part of the record”); Belden Inc. v.
`
`Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Here, as AliveCor doesn’t even appear to contest, each of the complained of
`
`exhibits has been offered in support of arguments that are directly responsive to
`
`those made by AliveCor in its Patent Owner Response. With its two sentence
`
`argument, AliveCor, as the moving party, has not even attempted to meet its
`
`burden of demonstrating how each of Exhibits APPLE-1060-68 and APPLE-1072-
`
`85 is not responsive and should be excluded. Instead, AliveCor simply contends
`
`that almost all of Apple’s reply evidence should be excluded simply because
`
`AliveCor contends that it could have been raised earlier. That is not the law, and
`
`exclusion is not warranted.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`AliveCor’s motions for exclusion should be denied.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 31, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00971
`Attorney Docket: 50095-0033IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on August
`
`31, 2022, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Petitioner’s Evidence were provided via email, to the
`
`Patent Owner by serving the email correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James M. Glass, Registration No. 46,729
`John T. McKee. Registration No. 65,926
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor New York, New York, 10010
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`qe-alivecor@quinnemanuel.com
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Andrew M. Holmes, Registration No. 64,718
`Sean S. Pak, Pro Hac Vice
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California St, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
`drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(617) 956-5938
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`