`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Trial Hearing Order (Paper 42), the parties met and
`
`conferred regarding Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits (Ex. 2054, individual pages identified below as “slides”) but were unable
`
`to resolve the following objections:
`
`Slide 12
`
`As PO conceded at the February 24, 2023 pre-hearing conference, none of
`
`the caselaw on slide 12 was mentioned or argued in the Patent Owner Response
`
`(“POR”) or the Patent Owner (“PO”) Sur-Reply, and the slide provides no citation
`
`to either document, while improperly referring to argument in a different
`
`proceeding, thus violating the “strict prohibition against the presentation of new
`
`evidence or arguments at the hearing” (Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 13
`
`As PO conceded at the February 24, 2023 pre-hearing conference, none of
`
`the case law (or the patent challenged in the case) on slide 13 was mentioned or
`
`argued in the POR or the PO Sur-Reply, and the slide provides no citation to either
`
`document, while improperly referring to argument in a different proceeding, thus
`
`violating the “strict prohibition against the presentation of new evidence or
`
`arguments at the hearing” (Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 17
`
`PO’s (1) characterization of its argument to the district court in a different
`
`proceeding, (2) the argument from the different proceeding (which PO block
`
`quotes and improperly incorporates by reference in a demonstrative), (3) the case
`
`law cited in PO’s bullet, and (4) the page (Ex. 1007 at 26) that PO block quotes,
`
`were never mentioned or discussed in the POR or the PO Sur-Reply, including at
`
`pages cited with a “see also” as the purported source of this material, thus violating
`
`the “strict prohibition against the presentation of new evidence or arguments at the
`
`hearing” (Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 18
`
`PO’s (1) characterization of its argument to the district court in a different
`
`proceeding, (2) the argument from the different proceeding (which PO block
`
`quotes and improperly incorporates by reference in a demonstrative), (3) the case
`
`law cited in PO’s bullet, and (4) the page (Ex. 1007 at 30) that PO block quotes,
`
`were never mentioned or discussed in the POR or the PO Sur-Reply, including at
`
`pages cited with a “see also” as the purported source of this material, thus violating
`
`the “strict prohibition against the presentation of new evidence or arguments at the
`
`hearing” (Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 75
`
`The argument at the second bullet on slide 75 is waived because it was not
`
`raised in the POR, including at POR 53-55 that the slide cites as its purported
`
`source, and is not responsive to any argument in the Reply, thus violating the
`
`“strict prohibition against the presentation of new evidence or arguments at the
`
`hearing” (Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide 77
`
`On the bottom portion of slide 77, PO: (1) cites declaration testimony that is
`
`not in evidence, (2) from persons who were never offered for cross-examination,
`
`and (3) makes new arguments that (a) characterize the not-of-record testimony, and
`
`(b) incomprehensibly assert that Petitioner failed to seek exclusion of “evidence”
`
`that is not in evidence, and of unidentified “expert opinion relying on this [not-of-
`
`record] evidence” that (i) PO’s expert never cited, (ii) on topics for which PO’s
`
`expert testified he had no knowledge—much less that he relied on testimony in
`
`declarations that he never cited, which PO alleges concern subject matter that PO’s
`
`expert testified he never discussed with the declarants (Ex. 1081, 33:11-19
`
`(Williams never spoke to Lenchner), 33:24-25 (same), 34:1-35:5 (Williams never
`
`discussed revenue or source code with Kol), 63:24-64:16 (Williams never
`
`discussed revenue with Kol), 74:21-76:2 (Williams has no knowledge whether
`
`source code was ever used in a product, or when)), thus violating the “strict
`
`prohibition against the presentation of new evidence or arguments at the hearing”
`
`(Paper 42, 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc.
`
`By: /Michael N. Rader/
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Gregory S. Nieberg Reg. No. 57,063
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`I certify that on February 27, 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
`Robert M. Harkins
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tomd@cherianllp.com
`elizabetho@cherianllp.com
`bobh@cherianllp.com
`
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 27, 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
