`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`