`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`Entered: September 23, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2021-01166
`Patent 8,304,935
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Legal Standard – Authentication Is A “Low Bar”........................................... 1
`II.
`III. Argument ......................................................................................................... 3
`A. Mr. Pierce’s Testimony Authenticates The O’Brien Dissertation
`(Ex. 1024) .............................................................................................. 3
`Dr. Hall-Ellis’ Expert Analysis Authenticates The O’Brien
`Dissertation (Ex. 1005) ......................................................................... 4
`The O’Brien Dissertation Is Self-Authenticating (FRE 902(7)) ........... 7
`The O’Brien Dissertation Is Authentic Based On The Totality
`Of the Circumstances (FRE 901(b)(4)) ................................................. 8
`Patent Owner Does Not Satisfy Its Burden To Prove Exhibit
`1007 Is Not Authentic ........................................................................... 8
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Actifio, Inc. v. Delphix Corp.,
`IPR2015-00108, Paper 56 (Apr. 29, 2016) ....................................................... 2, 8
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01091, Paper 49 (Nov. 27, 2019) ...................................................... 2, 9
`Hamilton Techs. LLC. V. Fleur Tehrani,
`IPR2020-01199, Paper 57 (Dec. 28, 2021)........................................................... 3
`United States v. Ceballos,
`789 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 2
`United States v. Franz,
`772 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 7
`United States v. Isiwele,
`635 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 2
`United States v. Patterson,
`277 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 1
`United States v. Turner,
`934 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 2
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid.
`901 ......................................................................................................................... 2
`901(a) ........................................................................................................ 1, 4, 5, 9
`901(b)(4) ....................................................................................................... 1, 8, 9
`902(7) ................................................................................................................ 7, 9
`903(4) .................................................................................................................... 1
`903(7) .................................................................................................................... 1
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ........................................................................................... 1, 2, 8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,304,935 (“’935 patent”)
`
`1002 File History for ’935 patent (“’935 patent FH”)
`
`1003 Declaration of Mark Allen (“Allen Decl.”)
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Mark Allen
`
`1005 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`1007 Kathleen O’Brien, Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Power
`Transmission System for Wireless Systems and Devices (2007) (Ph.D.
`dissertation, Technical University of Dresden) (“O’Brien”), including
`certified translation of the German portions of pages 1-3
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 2004/0001299, van Haaster, et al., “EMI Shield
`Including a Lossy Medium” (“Haaster”)
`
`1009
`
`International Publication No. WO 2005/024865, P. Beart, et al.,
`“Inductive Power Transfer Units Having Flux Shields” (“Beart”)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,501,364, Hui, et al., “Planar Printed-Circuit-Board
`Transformers with Effective Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
`Shielding” (“Hui-364”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0189910, S.R. Hui,
`“Planar Inductive Battery Charger” (“Hui-910”)
`
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 7,358,447, J.F. Gabower, “Electromagnetic Interference
`Shields for Electronic Devices” (“Gabower”)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`1013 Frederick Emmons Terman, et al., Electronic and Radio Engineering
`(4th ed. 1947) (“Terman”) (excerpted)
`
`1014 Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Magnetic Field Generation in an Inductively
`Coupled Radio-Frequency Power Transmission System, IEEE 2006
`37th Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference (July 2006)
`
`1015 G. Scheible, et al., Novel Wireless Power Supply System for Wireless
`Communication Devices in Industrial Automation Systems, IEEE 2002
`28th Annual Conference of the Industrial Electronics Society (Nov.
`2002) (“Scheible”)
`
`1016 Estill I. Green, The Story of Q, 43 Am. Scientist 584 (Oct. 1955) (“Story
`of Q”)
`
`1017 David H. Staelin, et al., Electromagnetic Waves 46 (1998) (“Staelin”)
`(excerpted)
`
`1018 Herbert L. Krauss, et al., Solid State Radio Engineering (1980)
`(“Krauss”) (excerpted)
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 8,169,185, A. Partovi & M. Sears, “System and Method
`for Inductive Charging of Portable Devices” (“Partovi”)
`
`1020 U.S. Patent No. 7,561,114, M. Maezawa, et al., “Electromagnetic
`Interference Suppressor, Antenna Device and Electronic Information
`Transmitting Apparatus” (“Maezawa”)
`
`1021 Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Design of Large Air-Gap Transformers for
`Wireless Power Supplies, IEEE 2003 34th Annual Conference on Power
`Electronics Specialists (June 2003)
`
`1022 Kathleen O’Brien, et al., Analysis of Wireless Power Supplies for
`Industrial Automation Systems, 29th Annual Conference of the IEEE
`Industrial Electronics Society (2003)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,639,989, Leo M. Higgins, III, “Shielded Electronic
`Component Assembly and Method for Making the Same” (“Higgins”)
`
`1024 Declaration of Michael T. Pierce In Response to Patent Owner’s
`Objections to Petitioner’s Exhibits [served, not filed]
`
`1025 Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, PH.D., as filed in IPR2021-01165
`[served, not filed]
`
`1026 Declaration of Jeffrey G. Homrig in Support of Petitioner’s Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`1027 Declaration of Blake R. Davis in Support of Petitioner’s Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The evidence of record establishes that Exhibit 1007, the O’Brien
`
`Dissertation, is admissible. Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1007
`
`qualifies as a printed publication that was publicly available prior to the filing date
`
`of the ’935 patent. See Pet. 10-12. Patent Owner’s only argument for exclusion is
`
`that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the document to be “authentic.” Mot. at
`
`1. Patent Owner is wrong. Momentum’s evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates
`
`that the O’Brien Dissertation is authentic, including based on (1) the declaration of
`
`Momentum’s former counsel Mr. Pierce, (2) the declaration of Dr. Hall-Ellis, an
`
`expert with more than 45 years of experience in the field of library and information
`
`resources, (3) self-authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 903(7), and (4)
`
`the totality of the circumstances under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4).
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner fails to provide any facts that could satisfy its burden
`
`as the moving party to prove that the O’Brien Dissertation is not authentic or
`
`otherwise inadmissible. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner’s motion should
`
`therefore be denied in its entirety.
`
`II. Legal Standard – Authentication Is A “Low Bar”
`Documents are authenticated by evidence “sufficient to support a finding
`
`that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Authenticity
`
`is, therefore, not an especially high hurdle for a party to overcome. See United
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`States v. Patterson, 277 F.3d 709, 713 (4th Cir. 2002); see also United States v.
`
`Ceballos, 789 F.3d 607, 617–18 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting “low” burden for
`
`authentication) (internal citation omitted); United States v. Isiwele, 635 F.3d 196,
`
`200 (5th Cir. 2011) (noting flaws in authentication go to weight not admissibility);
`
`Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2018-01091, Paper 49 at 72 (Nov. 27,
`
`2019) (“the authentication requirement under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 [is] a
`
`‘low bar.’”) (quoting United States v. Turner, 934 F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2019)).
`
`All that is required for a party authenticating an exhibit is to “prove a rational basis
`
`for that party’s claim that the document is what it is asserted to be.’” Caterpillar
`
`Inc., IPR2018-01091, Paper 49 at 72.
`
`As the party moving to exclude, Patent Owner bears the burden to
`
`demonstrate that a challenged exhibit is not admissible. See 37 CFR § 42.20(c);
`
`Actifio, Inc. v. Delphix Corp., IPR2015-00108, Paper 56 at 59 (Apr. 29, 2016).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`III. Argument
`A. Mr. Pierce’s Testimony Authenticates The O’Brien Dissertation
`(Ex. 1024)
`In response to Patent Owner’s objection to Exhibit 1007, Petitioner’s former
`
`counsel, Mr. Pierce1, submitted a declaration confirming that Exhibit 1007 is a true
`
`and correct copy of the O’Brien Dissertation and provides a URL link where it was
`
`accessed. Ex. 1024; see Hamilton Techs. LLC. V. Fleur Tehrani, IPR2020-01199,
`
`Paper 57 at 55–56 (Dec. 28, 2021) (finding counsel’s declaration “attesting to the
`
`accuracy” of documents “sufficient to clear the low bar for authentication”). Patent
`
`Owner attempts to cast doubt as to where Ex. 1007 originated (Mot. at 6-7), but
`
`clicking on the URL in Mr. Pierce’s declaration leads to a website with options to
`
`buy or request a “review copy” of the O’Brien dissertation, i.e., the document
`
`entitled “Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Power Transmission System for
`
`Wireless Systems and Devices” by Kathleen O’Brien, listing the ISBN
`
`[International Standard Book Number] as 978-3-8322-5775-0, consisting of 198
`
`pages, and published in January 2007. The information provided in the URL
`
`referenced in Mr. Pierce’s declaration matches the contents of Exhibit 1007. See
`
`
`1 Mr. Pierce is now a clerk for Judge Raymond T. Chen of the Federal Circuit, and
`
`was removed as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Ex. 1007 at 001 (“Inductively Coupled Radio Frequency Power Transmission
`
`System for Wireless Systems and Devices” by “Kathleen O’Brien”), 004
`
`(“Copyright Shaker Verlag 2007 . . . ISBN 978-3-8322-5775-0”); see generally id.
`
`at 001-198 (198 total pages). This information therefore authenticates Ex. 1007
`
`because it “support[s] a finding that the [matter in question] is what its proponent
`
`claims.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).
`
`B. Dr. Hall-Ellis’ Expert Analysis Authenticates The O’Brien
`Dissertation (Ex. 1005)
`Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis also independently evaluated and concluded that the
`
`O’Brien Dissertation is authentic. Her testimony is sufficient by itself, and it also
`
`corroborates Mr. Pierce’s testimony. Dr. Hall-Ellis analyzed the information
`
`contained in Exhibit 1007, compared it with library catalog and MARC records for
`
`the O’Brien Dissertation (Attachments 1a and 1b to Ex. 1005), and found them to
`
`match. Ex. 1005 ¶ 38. It is undisputed that the records Dr. Hall-Ellis retrieved
`
`contain information used by libraries around to world to catalog documents using
`
`“specific data about the work” based on “standardized, unique, three-digit code[s]
`
`corresponding to the type of data that follow.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30; see also generally
`
`id. ¶¶ 21-37. Because the “specific data about the work” found in industry-standard
`
`records for the O’Brien Dissertation matched the contents of Exhibit 1007, Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis concluded, based on the evidence and her more than 45 years of
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`experience, that there is “no suspicion about [Ex. 1007’s] authenticity.” Ex. 1005 ¶
`
`38; see id. ¶¶ 6-9 (discussing qualifications); Ex. 1006 (Dr. Hall-Ellis’ CV). Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis’s analysis also plainly exceeds the low bar for proving authenticity under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), especially when considered in tandem with Mr.
`
`Pierce’s declaration.
`
`Patent Owner chose not to depose Dr. Hall-Ellis, does not challenge her
`
`qualifications, nor does Patent Owner even now suggest that her opinions are
`
`incorrect. Patent Owner nevertheless asserts Dr. Hall-Ellis’s opinions are
`
`“insufficient” to show that Ex. 1007 is authentic for two reasons. Patent Owner is
`
`wrong on both counts. First, Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Hall-Ellis lacks personal
`
`knowledge for her opinions because she received a copy of Exhibit 1007 from
`
`counsel rather than retrieving the document herself “via the internet.” Mot. at 4-5.
`
`This is irrelevant. Dr. Hall-Ellis does not assert that Ex. 1007 is authentic based on
`
`how she received the document. To the contrary, she relied on the contents of Ex.
`
`1007 compared to library and MARC records as independent sources to verify that
`
`Exhibit 1007 is what Momentum purports it to be. There is no dispute that Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis has personal knowledge regarding the library and MARC records she
`
`used to form her opinions relating to the authenticity of Exhibit 1007. See Mot. at 4
`
`(pointing out that Dr. Hall-Ellis “personally identified and retrieved” Attachments
`
`1a and 1b). And Patent Owner does not dispute that those records do—in fact—
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`match the contents of Exhibit 1007 and support a finding that Exhibit 1007 is an
`
`authentic copy of the O’Brien Dissertation.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the “Second Hall-Ellis Declaration (Ex.
`
`1025), states that Exhibit 1007 is not of the O’Brien Dissertation” and therefore
`
`“calls Dr. Hall-Ellis’ and Mr. Pierce’s testimony [on the authenticity of the
`
`O’Brien Dissertation] into question.” Mot. 8. Patent Owner’s argument is
`
`fundamentally misleading and disingenuous. Exhibit 1025 references a
`
`“completely different document by different authors” than “Exhibit 1007” (Mot. at
`
`8), because Exhibit 1025 is a copy of Dr. Hall Ellis’ declaration “as filed in
`
`IPR2021-01165.” See D.I. 14 (Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List) at Exhibit 1025
`
`(“Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D., as filed in IPR2021-01165”)
`
`(emphasis added).2
`
`As Patent Owner certainly knows, IPR2021-01165 is a different proceeding
`
`wherein Petitioner is challenging the patentability of Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent
`
`
`2 Petitioner served Dr. Hall-Ellis’ declaration from IPR2021-01165 in this
`
`proceeding in response to Patent Owner’s authenticity objection to Exhibit 1016,
`
`the “Story of Q.” See D.I. 9 (Patent Owner’s Objections To Evidence) at 1
`
`(objecting to Exhibit 1016); Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 57-63 (analyzing authenticity and public
`
`availability of “Story of Q,” which is Exhibit 1009 in IPR2021-01165).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`No. 7,741,734. Exhibit 1025 at 001 (referencing “Patent No. 7,741,734” on the
`
`cover); see IPR2021-01165, Exhibit 1005. The exhibit numbers in Exhibit 1025
`
`directly correlate to the exhibit numbers in IPR2021-01165. Compare Exhibit 1025
`
`¶ 64 (summarizing opinions regarding Exhibits 1006, 1007, and 1009), with
`
`IPR2021-01165 Paper 15 (Petitioner’s Amended Exhibit List). Accordingly,
`
`Exhibit 1025 does not call “into question” the authenticity of the O’Brien
`
`dissertation; it is simply not relevant.
`
`C. The O’Brien Dissertation Is Self-Authenticating (FRE 902(7))
`In addition to the evidence discussed above regarding the authenticity of
`
`Exhibit 1007, the exhibit is also self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(7).
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 1007 contains a Shaker Verlag trade inscription, copyright
`
`data, and ISBN, which constitute an “inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to
`
`have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or
`
`control.” Fed. R. Evid. 902(7); see United States v. Franz, 772 F.3d 134, 141–42
`
`(3d Cir. 2014) (noting government admitted two pamphlets under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`902(7) based on the inscription on each pamphlet: “Printed in Denmark Copyright
`
`1973 Color Climax Corporation”).
`
`At the very least, this information on the face of the document corroborates
`
`Mr. Piece and Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`D. The O’Brien Dissertation Is Authentic Based On The Totality Of
`the Circumstances (FRE 901(b)(4))
`Momentum has also satisfied the requirement of demonstrating that Exhibit
`
`1007 is authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) based on the totality of
`
`the circumstances. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). Indeed, “[t]he appearance, contents,
`
`substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of [Exhibit 1007],
`
`taken together with all the circumstances,” including the two supporting
`
`declarations demonstrate that Exhibit 1007 is what Momentum states it is: a Ph.D.
`
`dissertation written by Kathleen O’Brien that was published and publicly available
`
`in 2007. Nothing about Exhibit 1007 suggests that it is not what it purports to be.
`
`Patent Owner fails to identify any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
`
`Accordingly, the evidence of record demonstrates that Exhibit 1007 is authentic
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). See Actifio, IPR2015-00108, Paper 56 at 59.
`
`E.
`Patent Owner Does Not Satisfy Its Burden To Prove Exhibit 1007
`Is Not Authentic
`Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1007 is also notable for what
`
`Patent Owner fails to argue. Importantly, Patent Owner does not claim that Exhibit
`
`1007 is not a true and correct copy of O’Brien’s Ph.D dissertation. Nor does Patent
`
`Owner present any evidence that Exhibit 1007 is not what Momentum purports it
`
`to be, or that it was altered in some way. Patent Owner bears the burden as movant
`
`to demonstrate the challenged document is inadmissible. See 37 CFR § 42.20(c).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Merely asserting that it is not authentic, without more, is insufficient. Caterpillar
`
`Inc., IPR2018-01091, Paper 49 at 71 (denying motion to exclude under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude should also be denied
`
`because Patent Owner does not present any reasoning or evidence, let alone meet
`
`its burden, that could possibly indicate “that any of the content of the exhibits
`
`suggest that the documents are not what they purport to be, or that they were
`
`altered in some way.” Id.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`In sum, Momentum has conclusively established that Exhibit 1007 is
`
`authentic evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) because the record
`
`unambiguously shows that the exhibit is what Momentum asserts it to be—a true
`
`and correct copy of Kathleen O’Brien’s Ph.D. dissertation published in 2007.
`
`Exhibit 1007 is also authentic under Federal Rules of Evidence 902(7) and
`
`901(b)(4). As such, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude should be denied.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 23rd day of September,
`
`2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s
`
`lead and backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`Joshua Griswold (Reg. No. 46,310)
`Dan Smith (Reg. No. 71,278)
`Kim Leung (Reg. No. 64,399)
`Kenneth Hoover (Reg. No. 68,116)
`W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265)
`Marc M. Wefers (Reg. No. 56,842)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 214.747.5070
`Fax: 877.769.7945
`Email: IPR25236-0267IP1@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`Email: griswold@fr.com
`Email: dsmith@fr.com
`Email: leung@fr.com
`Email: hoover@fr.com
`Email: axf-ptab@fr.com
`Email: wefers@fr.com
`
`Misha Hill (Reg. No. 59,737)
`57 Water Street
`Watertown, MA 02472
`Telephone: 617.926.2700
`Fax: 617.926.2745
`Email: misha.hill@witricity.com
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935) Petitioner’s Opposition to Mot. to Exclude
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg. No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (pro hac vice to be requested)
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.362.6666
`Fax: 415.236.6300
`Email: abrausa@durietangri.com
`Email: ddurie@durietangri.com
`Email: SERVICE-WITRICITY@durietangri.com
`
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`