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