`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 Are Inadmissible Hearsay .................. 5
`1.
`No Hearsay Exception Applies for Exhibits 2003, 2004,
`and 2009 ..................................................................................... 8
`2. Mr. Hoarty Should Not Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and
`2009 under FRE 703 ................................................................ 10
`Exhibit 2008 Is Irrelevant ................................................................... 10
`B.
`If Relevant, Exhibit 2008 Should Be Excluded Under FRE 403 ....... 12
`C.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`IPR2018-01249, Paper 27, 51-52 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020) ............................... 6, 7
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00825, Paper 50, 43-46 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021) ................................ 6
`Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 9
`GAF Materials, LLC v. Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC,
`IPR2021-00192, Paper 45, 62-65 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2022) .................. 6, 7, 9, 10
`Neste Oil OYJ v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC,
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 52, 9 (P.T.A.B. March 12, 2015) .................................... 9
`The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00135, Paper 51, 80-84 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) ............................ 6, 7
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00599, Paper 50, 51 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019) ...................................... 7
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, 38-42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) .............................. 8
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.2 ..................................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.51(b)(1)(ii) .................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.53 ................................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.62(a) .............................................................................................................. 5
`§ 42.64 ................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.64(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`FRE
`401 ............................................................................................................. 2, 10, 11
`403 ................................................................................................................... 2, 11
`703 ................................................................................................................... 2, 10
`801 ............................................................................................................. 2, 5, 6, 8
`802 ................................................................................................................. 2, 5, 7
`803(1)-(23) ............................................................................................................ 8
`804 ......................................................................................................................... 8
`807 ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (“PO”) repeatedly turns to partial
`
`testimony from experts in other matters to purportedly support its arguments in its
`
`papers. This testimony is inadmissible hearsay; PO’s exhibits, in their entirety, are
`
`out of court statements from witnesses that Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) never
`
`had an opportunity to cross-examine. Additionally, PO relies on an out of context
`
`analysis from an ITC proceeding—which Google did not participate in and did not
`
`involve the ʼ636 patent—to bolster an interpretation of a prior art reference that is
`
`inconsistent with the actual evidence in this proceeding. The ITC initial
`
`determination containing this discussion is irrelevant, as it involved fundamentally
`
`different issues and never addressed or analyzed the evidence presented here.
`
`Therefore, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`Google moves to exclude the following of PO’s exhibits:
`
` Exhibit 2003 – The Walt Disney Co. v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`
`IPR2022-01228, Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh)
`
` Exhibit 2004 – May 23, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Kevin Jeffay in
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., IPR2022-01430 and
`
`-01433
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2008 – In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components
`
`Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial
`
`Determination (ITC Sept. 9, 2022) (CALJ Clark S. Cheney)
`
` Exhibit 2009 – In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components
`
`Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265,
`
`Evidentiary Hearing - Volume III (ITC March 14, 2022)
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are a declaration, deposition, and hearing
`
`transcript containing testimony of experts not involved in this IPR and from cases
`
`not involving Google. These exhibits are inadmissible hearsay in their entirety and
`
`should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 801 and 802.
`
`Moreover, PO’s expert in this IPR, W. Leo Hoarty, should not be permitted to rely
`
`on these exhibits as the bases of his expert testimony under FRE 703.1
`
`
`1 Google believes it adequately is moving to strike Mr. Hoarty’s reliance on these
`
`exhibits generally, but out of an abundance of caution, Google identifies the
`
`following specific paragraphs in Mr. Hoarty’s Declaration (Exhibit. 2002) where he
`
`cites to the four exhibits Google moves to exclude: ¶ 67 (Exhibit 2003); ¶¶ 65, 66,
`
`67 (Exhibit 2004); ¶ 74 (Exhibit 2008); and ¶¶ 54, 65, 66, 67 (Exhibit 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2008 is an Initial Determination from the ITC, which should be
`
`excluded under FRE 401 as irrelevant. To the extent Exhibit 2008 is deemed
`
`relevant, it should nonetheless be excluded under FRE 403.
`
`PO improperly relies on these exhibits in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”)
`
`(Paper 10), filed on June 15, 2023 and its Patent Owner Sur-Reply (“PO Sur-Reply”)
`
`(Paper 16), filed October 19, 2023.2 Google timely objected to these exhibits in its
`
`Objections Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to Evidence Served by Patent Owner
`
`(Paper 11), filed June 23, 2023.
`
`For the reasons detailed below, Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2009 should
`
`be excluded.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Exhibit 2003 is the testimony (in a declaration) of Henry Houh in IPR2022-
`
`01228. Google is not a party to those IPRs.3 Dr. Houh has not offered testimony in
`
`the present IPR—he is not an expert for either Google or PO, or otherwise involved,
`
`
`2 As discussed further below, PO relies on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted in its POR and PO Sur-Reply.
`
`3 The parties to IPR2022-01227 and -01228 are petitioners The Walt Disney
`
`Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC and Netflix, Inc. and patent
`
`owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`in the present IPR,4 and Google has never had an opportunity to question Dr. Houh
`
`regarding his testimony in those other proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is the testimony (from deposition) of Kevin Jeffay in IPR2022-
`
`01430 and -01433. Again, Google is not a party to those IPRs,5 and Dr. Jeffay is not
`
`an expert for Google or PO, or otherwise involved, in the present IPR. In other
`
`words, Dr. Jeffay has not offered testimony in the present IPR, and Google has never
`
`had an opportunity to question Dr. Jeffay regarding his testimony in those other
`
`proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2009 consists of Dr. Jeffay’s testimony from a wholly unrelated
`
`matter—it is a hearing transcript containing Dr. Jeffay’s testimony during an ITC
`
`evidentiary hearing, which did not involve Google, PO, or the ʼ636 patent (or any
`
`related patent). Once again, Google has never had an opportunity to question Dr.
`
`Jeffay regarding his testimony in that other proceeding.
`
`
`4 Google’s expert in this IPR is Nathaniel Polish, and, as noted above, PO’s expert
`
`in this IPR is W. Leo Hoarty.
`
`5 The parties to IPR2022-01430 and -01433 are petitioners Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC and patent owner
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Finally, Exhibit 2008 is ALJ Cheney’s initial determination in the same ITC
`
`matter in which Dr. Jeffay opined. However, as noted above, neither Google nor PO
`
`were parties to that ITC investigation.6 That ITC investigation also did not involve
`
`the ʼ636 patent or any patent related to the ʼ636 patent.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 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. FRE 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception. FRE 802. The
`
`rule against hearsay applies to IPRs. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`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 that an opposing
`
`party can cross-examine the declarant in the IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Testimony, including testimony from other matters, such as IPRs and ITC
`
`investigations, which is not subject to cross-examination by the opposing party in an
`
`
`6 The parties in the ITC proceeding were complainants DISH DBS Corporation,
`
`DISH Technologies, L.L.C., and Sling TV L.L.C. and respondents iFIT, Inc. f/k/a
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., FreeMotion Fitness, Inc., NordicTrack, Inc., Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc., lululemon athletica, inc., and Curiouser Products Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`IPR, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter. See GAF Materials, LLC v.
`
`Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC, IPR2021-00192, Paper 45, 62-65 (P.T.A.B. May 24,
`
`2022) (excluding excerpts from expert declaration from district court from IPR as
`
`hearsay); The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00135, Paper 51,
`
`80-84 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) (excluding transcript excerpts from a trial involving
`
`PO and a third party as hearsay); Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01249,
`
`Paper 27, 51-52 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020); Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys., Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00825, Paper 50, 43-46 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021) (excluding testimony
`
`from district court proceeding from IPR as hearsay).
`
`Here, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are, in their entirety, statements made by
`
`Drs. Jeffay (Exhibits 2004 and 2009) and Houh (Exhibit 2003) outside of this
`
`proceeding and relied upon by PO to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those
`
`exhibits. See FRE 801(c). More specifically, in some instances, PO relies on the
`
`statements in these exhibits as alleged evidence of how a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the Carmel reference (Exhibit 1003) and HTTP.7 See, e.g.,
`
`
`7 To the extent PO argues that it uses these exhibits to show that Dr. Jeffay has taken
`
`inconsistent positions, these exhibits are nonetheless irrelevant because Dr. Jeffay is
`
`not an expert in this IPR, and his credibility is thus not at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 11-13 (citing Exhibit 2009); id. at 11 (PO and its expert “explaining
`
`referenced detailed testimony by Dr. Jeffay (Amazon’s expert)”); id. at 11-12
`
`(discussing how testimony provided from Dr. Jeffay in Exhibit 2009 “obliterates
`
`any ‘inherency assertion’”) (emphasis in original); POR at 33 n.10 (citing “prior
`
`testimony of Dr. Kevin Jeffay”). Critically, Google was not a party to any of the
`
`other proceedings in which any of this expert testimony was provided and has not
`
`had the opportunity to cross-examine Drs. Jeffay and Houh.
`
`The Board has previously excluded expert evidence as hearsay under similar
`
`circumstances. For example, in GAF Materials, the Board excluded, under FRE
`
`802, an expert declaration that patent owner was using to explain how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand two different processes, where the expert
`
`was not a witness in the present IPR. IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at 62-65; see also
`
`The Data Co., IPR2022-00135, Paper 51 at 82 (“We agree with petitioner that prior
`
`testimony from another case, which is not subject to cross-examination by the
`
`opposing party, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter.”); Apple, IPR2018-
`
`01249, Paper 27 at 51-52 (“Thus, this testimony is hearsay because Dr. Alpert does
`
`not offer the testimony while testifying at the current trial or hearing.”); Unified
`
`Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00599, Paper 50, 51
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019) (“We determine that, as set forth by patent owner . . . this
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`Exhibit is hearsay under [FRE] 801. Indeed, the Exhibit is a declaration containing
`
`testimony from a different IPR, offered to prove the truth of the matter, i.e., Acharya
`
`was publicly accessible in July 1999[.]”); US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard
`
`Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, 38-42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) (“The
`
`declaration in Exhibit 2034 qualifies as hearsay . . . the statements in that declaration
`
`were not made while testifying in this proceeding. Instead, the declaration was
`
`submitted during ex parte prosecution of another patent application.”).
`
`Additionally, these exhibits do not meet the conditions under FRE 801(d) for
`
`out of court statements that are not considered hearsay. The statements made in
`
`these exhibits were not made by a representative of Google, with authorization from
`
`Google, or by Google’s agent or employee; nor has Google adopted any of the
`
`statements made in these exhibits. FRE 801(d)(2).
`
`Thus, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 in their entirety are unquestionably
`
`hearsay.
`
`1.
`
`No Hearsay Exception Applies for Exhibits 2003, 2004, and
`2009
`None of the hearsay exceptions provided in FRE 803, 804, or 807 apply.
`
`First, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 do not satisfy any of the conditions that
`
`are set forth in FRE 803(1)-(23).
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Second, FRE 804’s exceptions too do not apply because they require a witness
`
`to be unavailable. Under FRE 804, a witness is unavailable due to: (1) a testifying
`
`exemption from court rules or privilege; (2) refusing to testify despite a court order;
`
`(3) lack of memory; (4) declarant death or then-existing infirmity, physical illness,
`
`or mental illness; or (5) the declarant’s testimony is not obtainable by process or
`
`other reasonable means. FRE 804. None of these circumstances applies here.
`
`Third, Rule 807 (the residual hearsay exception) does not apply either because
`
`it requires the statement to (1) be supported by sufficient guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was
`
`made and (2) be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other
`
`evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts. FRE 807. The
`
`Board has held that the exercise of the residual exception “is to be reserved for
`
`‘exceptional cases,’ and is not ‘a broad license on trial judges to admit hearsay
`
`statements that do not fall within one of the other exceptions.’” Neste Oil OYJ v.
`
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 52, 9 (P.T.A.B. March 12, 2015)
`
`(quoting Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This
`
`is not such an exceptional case. See GAF Materials, IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at
`
`65 (“We agree with Petitioner that no [hearsay] exception or exclusion applies in
`
`this case.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Thus, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 should be excluded from this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2. Mr. Hoarty Should Not Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009
`under FRE 703
`To the extent PO argues that Mr. Hoarty should nonetheless be able to rely on
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 to form his expert opinions, PO is incorrect. As the
`
`Board found in GAF Materials, “opinions of others offered in litigation are not the
`
`sort of ‘facts or data’ that experts in the field [] would reasonably rely on in forming
`
`their own opinions.” IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at 65.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2008 Is Irrelevant
`PO cites Exhibit 2008, which is ALJ Cheney’s initial determination from an
`
`unrelated ITC investigation, in its POR for ALJ Cheney’s purported understanding
`
`of disclosures in the Carmel reference (Exhibit 1003). See, e.g., POR at 33, 35, 51.
`
`However, Exhibit 2008 and ALJ Cheney’s discussion of Carmel are irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401.
`
`The ITC investigation did not involve either PO or Google. And the asserted
`
`patents in the ITC investigation are completely unrelated to the ʼ636 patent and have
`
`different disclosures and purported inventions. Critically, ALJ Cheney’s discussions
`
`of Carmel, which PO cites, are in the context of the limitations of the patents asserted
`
`in the ITC investigation. For example, ALJ Cheney’s discussions of Carmel on
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`pages 175 and 177-78 of the initial determination are in the context of a limitation
`
`reciting, “automatically requesting from the video server subsequent portions of the
`
`video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies
`
`dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback
`
`quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies.” EX2008 at 172-73.
`
`ALJ Cheney’s remarks about Carmel should thus be properly placed in the context
`
`of analyzing whether Carmel anticipated this limitation and are therefore irrelevant
`
`to the determination of whether Google’s grounds involving Carmel invalidate the
`
`ʼ636 patent.
`
`Additionally, while Google asserts Carmel in its grounds in this IPR, and the
`
`respondents in the ITC investigation also relied on Carmel as invalidating prior art,
`
`the testimony provided by the experts in this case differs from the testimony
`
`provided in that case and the relied-upon disclosures from Carmel also differ in many
`
`respects. Accordingly, ALJ Cheney’s understanding of Carmel was informed by
`
`different evidence from different proceedings in which Google had no opportunity
`
`to participate or present arguments. Moreover, ALJ Cheney’s findings, or any
`
`understanding of Carmel’s disclosures, are not controlling of this Board.
`
`For these reasons, Exhibit 2008 should be excluded under FRE 401.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`C.
`If Relevant, Exhibit 2008 Should Be Excluded Under FRE 403
`Even if found to be relevant, Exhibit 2008 should be excluded under FRE 403
`
`because it has very limited probative value for the reasons discussed above, and this
`
`limited value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, and unfair prejudice. As explained above, the context of ALJ
`
`Cheney’s discussion of Carmel is critical, and the manner in which PO cites ALJ
`
`Cheney’s discussion is confusing and misleading, and it would be a waste of time
`
`for Google to have to explain how the differing contexts impact the analysis.
`
`Moreover, given that Google never had an opportunity to present evidence or
`
`argument in those proceedings, it would be unfairly prejudicial to Google to have to
`
`address the errors in those proceedings. For these reasons, Exhibit 2008 should
`
`nonetheless be excluded.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, the Board should exclude Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2008,
`
`and 2009.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2023
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 842-7885
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`/Eamonn Gardner/
`
` Eamonn Gardner
`
` (Reg. No. 63,322)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., a complete copy of the attached
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`is being served via email on the 30th day of November 2023, upon Patent Owner’s
`appointed attorneys of record:
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Ronald Abramson
`ron.abramson@listonabramson.com
`M. Michael Lewis
`michael.lewis@listonabramson.com
`Ari J. Jaffess
`ari.jaffess@listonabramson.com
`Gina K. Kim
`gina.kim@listonabramson.com
`LISTON ABRAMSON LLP
`405 Lexington Ave, 46th Floor
`New York, NY 10174
`Telephone: (212) 257-1630
`Facsimile: (914) 462-4175
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2023
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 842-7885
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`/Eamonn Gardner/
`Eamonn Gardner
`(Reg. No. 63,322)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`