`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chanel, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Molo Design, Ltd.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner submits the following
`
`objections to Exhibits 2034-2037 filed with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply. Petitioner’s
`
`objections are timely, being filed within 5 business days of service of Exhibits
`
`2034-2037.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2034-2037 as untimely and filed in violation of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide. Exhibits 2034-
`
`2037 purport to be emails sent or received by Patent Owner in April 2017. Patent
`
`Owner relies on these exhibits as evidence of copying. See Paper 32 at 30-31.
`
`Patent Owner could have filed these exhibits with its Response, in which it first
`
`raised the issue of alleged copying (see Paper 19 at 69-71), or with its earlier
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8). Instead, Patent Owner withheld this new evidence
`
`until its Sur-Reply, depriving Petitioner the opportunity to obtain related discovery
`
`and to respond in its briefing.1
`
`Patent Owner’s belated submission of Exhibits 2034-2037 violates 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b) and the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide because these exhibits
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s untimely submission is especially prejudicial because Patent
`
`Owner failed to include a closely related email in its possession that undercuts the
`
`copying argument made in its Sur-Reply.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`constitute new evidence and are not deposition transcripts of the cross-examination
`
`of any reply witness. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply . . . may not be
`
`accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-
`
`examination of any reply witness.”); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide,
`
`November 2019 at 73 (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence
`
`other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.”);
`
`Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., LTD., IPR2020-00836, Paper 45
`
`at 75-77 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2021) (striking exhibits filed with patent owner’s sur-
`
`reply because they constituted new evidence other than deposition transcripts of
`
`the cross-examination of any reply witness); Lenovo Holding Co., Inc. v. Dodots
`
`Licensing Solutions LLC, IPR2019-01278, Paper 37 at 31-33 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2021)
`
`(same).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2034-2037 as constituting
`
`impermissible hearsay to which no exception applies because Patent Owner relies
`
`on its own statements in these documents to prove the truth of those statements.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibits 2034-2037 as not properly
`
`authenticated under Fed. R. Evid. 901 because Patent Owner has offered no
`
`evidence showing that these documents are authentic or that they are self-
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902.
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests that Patent Owner immediately withdraw Exhibits 2034-
`
`2037.
`
`Dated: April 17, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`
`By /Gina Cornelio/
`Gina Cornelio
`Registration No. 64,336
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 629-3400
`Fax: (303) 629-3450
`cornelio.gina@dorsey.com
`
`Mark A. Miller
`Registration No. 44,944
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`111 South Main Street, Suite 2100
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176
`Tel: (801) 933-4068
`Fax: (801) 933-7373
`miller.mark@dorsey.com
`
`Shannon L. Bjorklund (pro hac vice)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 340-2600
`Fax: (612) 677-3086
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`bjorklund.shannon@dorsey.com
`
`Geoffrey M. Godfrey (pro hac vice)
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 903-8800
`Fax: (206) 299-3849
`godfrey.geoff@dorsey.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00545
`U.S. Patent 9,689,161
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service of this document pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(e) upon the Patent Owner by causing a copy to be delivered via electronic
`
`mail to the following counsel of record:
`
`Michael Chibib
`Registration No. 40,950
`Bracewell LLP
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 472-7800 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`michael.chibib@bracewell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Jared D. Schuettenhelm
`Registration No. 59,539
`Patrick Connolly
`Registration No. 69,570
`BRACEWELL LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`jared.schuettenhelm@bracewell.com
`patrick.connolly@bracewell.com
`
`And a courtesy copy upon below counsel in the related district court matter via
`
`electronic mail:
`
`Conor Civins (conor.civins@bracewell.com)
`David Shargel (david.shargel@bracewell.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 17, 2023
`
`By /Gina Cornelio/
`Gina Cornelio
`Registration No. 64,336
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`