`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBITS 2034-2037
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Chanel, Inc. moves to strike Exhibits 2034-2037, which were filed
`
`with Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd.’s Sur-reply. Molo’s submission of Exhibits
`
`2034-2037 violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`because these exhibits admittedly constitute new evidence and are not deposition
`
`transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Exhibits 2034-2037 purport to be emails sent or received by Molo in April
`
`2017. Molo relies on these exhibits as evidence of copying. (See Paper 32 at 30-
`
`31.) Molo 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, Molo withheld this new evidence until its Sur-Reply.
`
`Chanel timely objected to Exhibits 2034-2037 and requested Molo withdraw
`
`them. (Paper 33.) On April 19, 2023, Molo admitted these exhibits constitute “new
`
`evidence,” and the Board authorized Chanel to file this Motion.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD STRIKE EXHIBITS 2034-2037 BECAUSE
`THEY WERE FILED CONTRARY TO THE BOARD’S RULES AND
`
`TRIAL PRACTICE GUIDE
`
`Molo’s belated submission of Exhibits 2034-2037 violates 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b) and the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide because these 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
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 permitted deposition
`
`transcripts); Lenovo Holding Co., Inc. v. Dodots Licensing Solutions LLC,
`
`IPR2019-01278, Paper 37 at 31-33 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2021) (same).
`
`Striking Exhibits 2034-2037 would not unfairly prejudice Molo because
`
`Molo had multiple opportunities to submit this evidence in a timely manner but
`
`chose not to do so. Exhibits 2034-2037 are from Molo’s own files. Molo could
`
`have filed these exhibits with its Response wherein it first raised the issue of
`
`alleged copying (see Paper 19 at 69-71). Copying is an issue on which Molo bears
`
`the burden of production. See ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018) (“[A] patentee bears the burden of production with respect to evidence
`
`of secondary considerations of non-obviousness.”). If Molo wanted to rely on these
`
`exhibits as evidence of copying, it was obligated to submit them earlier.
`
`Allowing Molo’s late submission of Exhibits 2034-2037 would unfairly
`
`prejudice Chanel because Molo has deprived Chanel the opportunity to obtain and
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`present related discovery in its responsive briefing. For example, in the related
`
`district court action, Molo produced an additional 2017 email (MOLO_00001811)
`
`that is directly related to Exhibits 2034-2037 and that undercuts Molo’s copying
`
`argument. If Molo had submitted Exhibits 2034-2037 in a timely manner, Chanel
`
`would have introduced this other evidence to show how Molo’s copying argument
`
`is baseless. Instead, Molo seeks to gain an unfair advantage by making a late and
`
`incomplete submission of new evidence.
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cited by
`
`Molo, did not involve new evidence submitted with a Sur-reply and is therefore
`
`inapposite. New evidence is treated differently at the Sur-reply stage, as the
`
`language of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) makes clear. The Reply declaration at issue in
`
`Belden complied with § 42.23(b); Molo’s new Sur-reply evidence does not.
`
`Lastly, Exhibits 2034-2037 do not “correct[] the record,” as Molo contends.
`
`Chanel’s Reply observed that “Molo presents no evidence that Chanel had
`
`knowledge of the ’161 patent or acquired a physical sample of the softwall product
`
`before purchasing a competing product.” (Paper 30 at 11.) That statement was both
`
`accurate and appropriate given that Molo bears the burden of production on
`
`copying and failed to put forth any such evidence within the time permitted.
`
`Molo’s belated attempt to plug this gap is barred by 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the
`
`Trial Practice Guide. Accordingly, the Board should strike Exhibits 2034-2037.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 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
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 24, 2023
`
`By /Gina Cornelio/
`Gina Cornelio
`Registration No. 64336
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`