Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00135
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S
`CORRECTED EXHIBITS 2026 AND 2027
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00135
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S
`CORRECTED EXHIBITS 2026 AND 2027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Compliance With Trial Practice Guide p. 79 Requirements (a)-(d) ............... 1
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Argument ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 Are Inadmissible Hearsay ...................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 Are Unquestionably Hearsay ....................... 2
`
`Rule 804’s Unavailability Exceptions Do Not Apply ................ 3
`
`Rule 807’s Residual Hearsay Exception Does Not Apply ......... 4
`
`Petitioner’s Submission of Exhibit 1116 Is Irrelevant ................ 5
`
`B.
`
`If the CE Are Admitted, Petitioner Should Be Allowed to Respond .... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`CBM2015-00133, Paper 38 (Nov. 10, 2016) ......................................................... 5
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00825, Paper 50 (Oct. 12, 2021) .........................................................2, 5
`
`CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00636, Paper 97 (Sept. 7, 2016) ............................................................. 4
`
`Conoco Inc. v. Dept. of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01688, Paper 47 (Mar. 16, 2022) ............................................................ 2
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 4
`
`Yita, LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC,
`IPR2020-01139, Paper 44 (July 1, 2021) ............................................................... 3
`
`Yita, LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC,
`IPR2020-01139, Paper 50 (June 30, 2021) ............................................................ 3
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ...................................................................................................2, 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 804 ...................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 ...................................................................................................4, 5
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 COF.R. § 42.123(b) cceccscccsscsssesccssssssessscensssecsccenssseseceesesssesesenssnseeseearsnseesesensnnetseeenen 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ......................................................................................................... 2
`37 CAR. § 42.2 ccccccsssssessccsssssssesesesnsssessssensssessecesssssvseceesssnesseenssneessesansnsessesensnneseeeenen2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) ......................................................................................... 2
`37 CAF.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) .csscsecsccccssecessccsssssessccenssseseccessssseesesenssnsesessarsssessesensneeseceesen2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 2
`37 CAFR. § 42.53 vcccssccecsccsssssscesesessssscesesensssessccessssstseceessssseessenssnessesarsnsessssensneeteesenen2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`37 CAFR. § 42.62(a).ccccccsssccsssseescsssssscescsensssecsecensssevsecesssssecessesssnsessesarsusetsesensnueteeeesan2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`- ill -
`
`
`
`
`
`As directed by the Board in Paper 31, Petitioner moves to exclude as hearsay
`
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Corrected Exhibits (“CE”) 2026 and 2027.1
`
`I.
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Compliance With Trial Practice Guide p. 79 Requirements (a)-(d)
`
`Petitioner objected to the CE as hearsay during the January 6, 2023 call.
`
`PO relies on CE 2026: Paper 16, 72-73; Paper 29, 23; Ex. 2044 ¶¶ 230, 231;
`
`and on CE 2027: Paper 16, 72-74; Paper 29, 23; Ex. 2044 ¶¶ 229, 231-232.
`
`(c)-(d) Petitioner argues its hearsay objection below.
`
`II. Background
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 are piecemeal excerpts from transcripts of a federal court
`
`trial between PO and non-parties to this IPR. PO cites the excerpts as purported
`
`secondary considerations evidence (i.e., supposed “long-felt need” and “copying”).
`
`Paper 16, 72-74. While the witnesses were addressed by name in a few places
`
`(CE 2026, 195, 196; CE 2027, 94, 131), there is no indication who testifies on
`
`pages 202-204 of CE 2026 and 149-150, 152-153 of CE 2027. The exhibits about
`
`which they testified—Trial Exhibits 2, 5, 80, 204, 221, 222, 298, 484, 526 (see CE
`
`2026, 188, 190, 201-203; CE 2027, 96, 104, 149, 152)—have not been produced.
`
`
`1 CE 2026 and 2027 are late supplemental information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`Over Petitioner’s objections, the Board provisionally authorized PO to file them,
`
`and ordered Petitioner to file this motion. Paper 31.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. CE 2026 and 2027 Are Inadmissible Hearsay
`
`Statements “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial
`
`or hearing,” offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement,”
`
`are hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception.
`
`Rule 802. The rule against hearsay applies to IPRs. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`1.
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 Are Unquestionably Hearsay
`
`In an IPR, in-court statements are “submitted in the form of an affidavit” or
`
`a compliant declaration. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.2. This ensures an opposing party
`
`can cross-examine the witness in the IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii); Vudu v.
`
`Ideahub, IPR2020-01688, Paper 47, 7 (Mar. 16, 2022) (excluding, as hearsay,
`
`testimony not subject to cross-examination by the opposing party’s IPR counsel).
`
`Prior testimony from another case, which is not subject to cross-examination
`
`by the opposing party in an IPR, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter.
`
`Asetek Danmark v. CoolIT Sys., IPR2020-00825, Paper 50, 43-46 (Oct. 12, 2021)
`
`(testimony from district court proceeding excluded from IPR as hearsay).
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 are testimony from another case not involving Petitioner
`
`(thus Petitioner never had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses) and PO
`
`is offering that testimony for its purported truth. Accordingly, CE 2026 and 2027
`
`are unquestionably hearsay—and thus inadmissible unless an exception applies.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Rule 804’s Unavailability Exceptions Do Not Apply
`
`PO has made no attempt to establish that any of the witnesses who testified
`
`in CE 2026 or 2027 are “unavailable” under Rule 804.
`
`According to PO, some of the testimony is from Ofer Vilenski, an employee
`
`of Bright Data (PO) itself. Paper 16, 73 (“Bright Data’s Ofer Vilenski”). As an
`
`employee of PO, from whom PO presented testimony at the district court trial,
`
`Mr. Vilenski obviously is not “unavailable” to testify in this IPR.
`
`According to PO, some of the testimony is from Tomas Okmanas, allegedly
`
`affiliated with “Oxylabs.” Paper 16, 73. None of the Rule 804 unavailability
`
`criteria apply: (1) manifestly, no privilege applies; (2) there is no court order, let
`
`alone evidence that he refuses to testify in this IPR despite a court order; (3) he has
`
`not claimed lack of memory; (4) there is no evidence that he is dead or ill; and (5)
`
`PO has made no effort to procure his testimony in this matter by process or other
`
`means.2 Instead, PO simply took the shortcut of citing prior testimony from a
`
`different case, such that Petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine.
`
`
`2 The Board has authorized various procedures for securing remote testimony from
`
`witnesses abroad, including in Lithuania (where Mr. Okmanas may reside). E.g.,
`
`Yita v. MacNeil, IPR2020-01139, Paper 50 (Board authorized procedure for remote
`
`testimony via interview of witness in Lithuania); Paper 44 (stipulation re: same).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the Rule 804(b)(1) “former testimony” exception only applies if the
`
`former testimony is “offered against a party who had—or, in a civil case, whose
`
`predecessor in interest had—an opportunity or similar motive to develop it by
`
`direct, cross-, or redirect examination.” Rule 804(b)(1)(B). Petitioner was not
`
`involved in the trial and is unrelated to the defendants in the trial.
`
`The Rule 804(b)(3) “statement against interest” exception does not apply, as
`
`no statement of Mr. Okmanas is “so contrary to proprietary or pecuniary interest”
`
`as to “expose [him] to civil or criminal liability.” PO contends his testimony
`
`relates to “copying.” Paper 16, 73-74. But even PO’s own description is merely
`
`that Oxylabs made a competing product. Id. Oxylabs never had access to PO’s
`
`source code, and thus could not have copied it. CE 2027, 97. Competition does
`
`not show copying. Wyers v. Master Lock, 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Thus, the testimony does not support a copying argument even against Oxylabs,
`
`CaptionCall v. Ultratec, IPR2015-00636, Paper 97, 13 (Sept. 7, 2016) (excluding
`
`hearsay testimony that “a teardown ‘has happened’ … [which] is not an admission
`
`against interest about copying”)—and certainly would not “expose [Mr. Okmanas]
`
`to civil or criminal liability,” as he was not even a defendant in the suit.
`
`3.
`
`Rule 807’s Residual Hearsay Exception Does Not Apply
`
`Rule 807’s residual hearsay exception is “reserved for exceptional cases.”
`
`Conoco v. Dept. of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`PO cannot demonstrate that CE 2026 or 2027 are “more probative on the
`
`point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain
`
`through reasonable efforts.” Rule 807(a)(2). PO could simply have submitted a
`
`declaration from Mr. Vilenski. Mr. Vilenski’s declaration could have covered the
`
`relevant subjects, or PO could have submitted testimony from others, including
`
`Mr. Okmanas (see supra n. 2), which PO never even tried to do. Asetek, 46
`
`(granting motion to exclude: “Having failed to [seek the witness’s testimony in the
`
`IPR] Petitioner cannot now argue that it could not have obtained [it] in this
`
`proceeding through reasonable efforts.”).
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Submission of Exhibit 1116 Is Irrelevant
`
`PO may argue that Petitioner’s submission of PO’s expert’s trial testimony
`
`(Exhibit 1116) somehow excuses PO’s reliance on hearsay. To the contrary, as a
`
`matter of law, testimony PO authorized is not hearsay when offered against PO.
`
`Rule 801(d)(2)(C); Apple v. Smartflash, CBM2015-00133, Paper 38, 33 (Nov. 10,
`
`2016) (prior testimony of patent owner’s expert admissible against patent owner).
`
`CE 2026 and 2027 do not, by contrast, contain testimony authorized by Petitioner.
`
`B.
`
`If the CE Are Admitted, Petitioner Should Be Allowed to Respond
`
`If belated CE 2026 or 2027 are admitted, Petitioner should be afforded an
`
`opportunity to address them via a supplement to its Reply brief.
`
`Date: January 18, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`/Michael N. Rader/
`
` Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`I certify that on January 18, 2023, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits filed therewith, to be served via electronic mail,
`
`as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Elizabeth A. O’Brien
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tomd@cherianllp.com
`elizabetho@cherianllp.com
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 18, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
