`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALIVECOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2021-00971
`U.S. Patent No. 10,595,731
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to respond to the heart of PO’s motion: that the rules governing
`
`practice before this Board do not permit a petitioner to jettison its petition-expert at
`
`the 11th hour, on reply, proffering new testimony from another expert, given in
`
`another forum, related to different issues (§ 101) and different prior art. The
`
`reason Petitioner did so here is clear: during cross-examination, Petitioner’s IPR
`
`expert conceded he lacked the necessary expertise to offer opinions regarding
`
`machine learning, which is core to claims of the AliveCor patents. Petitioner must
`
`have known its expert lacked this expertise when it filed its Petition, and should not
`
`be permitted to remedy this failing at this late stage by effectively swapping experts.
`
`If the Board sanctions this approach, petitioners will be encouraged to hide their true
`
`expert testimony until reply after the weaknesses in their expert’s testimony have
`
`been exposed, and submit new expert testimony under the guise of responding to a
`
`patent owner’s dispositive arguments in a POR. This should not be allowed.
`
`I.
`
`NEW EVIDENCE ON REPLY IS NOT PERMITTED
`
`On Reply, Petitioner submitted an ITC expert report, deposition, and trial
`
`testimony from its ITC expert, Dr. Stultz (“ITC Testimony”) and several new prior
`
`art references not raised in the Grounds (“New Prior Art”). Dr. Stultz did not submit
`
`a declaration in this case. Petitioner also did not submit a reply declaration from its
`
`IPR expert, Dr. Chaitman, instead jettisoning him when he admitted on cross that he
`
`was not an expert on machine learning. Ex. 2017, 27:23-28:1. Petitioner instead
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`relies on the new ITC Testimony, which relates primarily to patent eligibility under
`
`§ 101, to support its prima facie case of obviousness of the machine learning claims
`
`and the New Prior Art to bolster its obviousness positions based on Shmueli and
`
`Osorio. However, not a single reference submitted with the New Prior Art was part
`
`of the asserted grounds and Petitioner has not argued that it was unable to raise this
`
`New Prior Art in the Petition, or that it was unable to rely on its ITC Expert in the
`
`Petition. The TPG is clear that a Petitioner “may not submit new evidence or
`
`argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie
`
`case of unpatentability.” TPG at 73. Petitioner’s new evidence should be excluded.
`
`See Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). This is thus all plainly new evidence, prohibited on Reply.
`
`Remarkably, Petitioner argues that the ITC Testimony and New Prior art do
`
`not constitute impermissible new evidence and should not be excluded because PO
`
`“doesn’t even appear to contest” that the new evidence was “offered in support of
`
`arguments that are directly responsive to those made by AliveCor in its Patent Owner
`
`Response.” Resp. at 6. This is incorrect—PO argued that this was impermissible
`
`new evidence. Mot. at 5; Sur-Reply at 2-5.
`
`Allowing Petitioner to rely on this new evidence would also have a deleterious
`
`impact on IPR practice, encouraging IPR petitioners to submit unlimited new
`
`evidence in reply including new testimony from new experts, on unrelated topics,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`as well as new prior art that could have been raised in the Petition, with no ability
`
`for a patent owner’s expert to respond. Reply evidence should not be without
`
`limits—the purpose of the rules is not to allow a petitioner to sidestep a patent
`
`owner’s ability to defend itself. Moreover, Petitioner’s approach is fundamentally
`
`unfair to patent owners who have only one opportunity for an expert to respond—
`
`the POR. See Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 775.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S LEGAL AUTHORITY IS UNAVAILING
`
`Apple does not cite a single case where hearsay testimony on unrelated issues
`
`and new prior art was accepted on Reply.1 Apple first cites Intel Corp. v. Tela
`
`Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01255, Paper 79 (PTAB Jan. 26, 2021) for the
`
`proposition that PO’s motion puts “form over substance.” But in that case, the
`
`Board simply declined to rule on the motion to exclude ITC evidence, as the
`
`evidence of record was sufficient for its decision. In any event, the ITC evidence
`
`submitted on reply in that case was directly related to issues raised in the proceeding
`
`– secondary considerations – and was submitted to support Petitioner’s Reply
`
`declaration from the petition expert. Id. at 6, 77. Here, neither is true.
`
`In Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, IPR2016-00332, Paper 29 (PTAB June 22, 2017),
`
`the petitioner reused fact witness declarations from an earlier filed ex parte
`
`
`1 Exhibits 1065-1068, 1074-1080, 1085 are hearsay as well. See Sur-Reply at 2-
`5. No hearsay exception applies, these exhibits should be excluded.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`reexamination involving a related patent. That testimony also was directly related to
`
`the issues in the IPR—it was used to establish that the prior art relied upon in the
`
`grounds were printed publications. Id. at 3, 80-81 (PTAB June 22, 2017). Thus, in
`
`VirnetX, the “main distinction” was simply the caption. Id. Here, Dr. Stultz’s
`
`opinion has nothing to do with the IPR art or issues at all.
`
`Moreover, the Rule 804(b)(1) hearsay exception for former testimony for
`
`unavailable declarants does not apply. Apple argues “because the Board doesn’t
`
`allow for live testimony at an IPR hearing [] all experts are ‘unavailable’ to
`
`testify”—in essence, Apple argues that Rule 804(b)(1) should always apply because
`
`experts are always unavailable in IPR hearings. Resp. at 3. But the Board does
`
`permit live testimony; this proposed hearsay exception would subsume the rule—
`
`any prior art author or inventor would be “unavailable” and their testimony not
`
`hearsay. Moreover, at the same time, Petitioner argues that its expert was available
`
`and could have sat for deposition. Id. at 1. Petitioner cannot have it both ways.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s complaint that Patent Owner could have deposed Dr. Stultz as
`uncompelled testimony is both wrong and unavailing. Dr. Stultz’s testimony was
`not submitted as a declaration in this case, and is therefore compelled testimony. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53. Petitioner would have this Board excuse its improper new
`evidence because PO did not jump through the additional expense of moving for and
`then cross examining its replacement expert. This turns the analysis on its head—
`the new evidence is improper and should never have been submitted in the first place.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`The real issue is whether the hearsay exception applies at all—it doesn’t.
`
`Because Dr. Stultz’s ITC testimony related to § 101 and to unrelated prior art, PO
`
`did not have a “similar motive” to cross-examine him on issues pertinent to this
`
`proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). The Rule 804(b)(1) hearsay exception
`
`does not apply and the Intel case cited by Petitioner does not hold otherwise.
`
`Petitioner also relies on CostCo Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC,
`
`IPR2016-00038, Paper 68 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2017), but that case involved a fact
`
`witness, not an expert, and prior trial testimony on “the same issues” as the IPR
`
`proceeding. Id. at 16.
`
`Lastly, the residual hearsay exception does not apply—that exception is for
`
`“exceptional cases,” and petitioner provides only the barest summary of analyses.
`
`VirnetX, IPR2016-00332, Paper 29 at 81 (quotation omitted). Rule 807 requires that
`
`the hearsay testimony sought to be admitted is “more probative on the point for
`
`which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
`
`reasonable efforts.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(2). Here, Dr. Stultz’s testimony on § 101
`
`and unrelated prior art simply is simply not probative of the prior art issues in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Date: September 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /Jim Glass/
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`
`SULLIVAN LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00971
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(E), 42.105(A))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served in
`
`its entirety on September 7, 2022 upon the following parties via Electronic Mail.
`
`W. Karl Renner Jeremy J. Monaldo
`
`IPR50095-0032IP1@fr.com
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 7, 2022
`
` By: /Jim Glass/
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`
`SULLIVAN LLP
`
`
`
`6
`
`