`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,762,636
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2022-01413
`
`_______________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`I. GOOGLE FAILS TO SHOW THAT EXHIBITS 2003, 2004, AND 2009 ARE
`IMPROPER HEARSAY .................................................................................... 2
`
`II. MR. HOARTY DOES NOT RELY ON THE CHALLENGED EXHIBITS TO
`REACH HIS CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 5
`
`III. EXHIBIT 2008 AS A REASONED DECISION OF A SISTER TRIBUNAL
`IS BOTH RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE ...................................................... 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`Petitioner (Google) seeks to exclude as hearsay Exhibits 2003, 2004, and
`
`2009 herein (testimony of other experts concerning the Carmel reference, Exhibit
`
`1003), and portions of Patent Owner’s expert’s declaration (Exhibit 2002) that cite
`
`these exhibits, as allegedly relying upon improper hearsay. Google also seeks to
`
`exclude Exhibit 2008 (ITC decision also addressing Carmel) as allegedly
`
`irrelevant.
`
`Google has the burden on this motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Hoarty, cited Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 to
`
`reflect that others in the field who had considered Carmel reached like conclusions.
`
`This goes to the reliability and credibility of Mr. Hoarty’s own opinions, set forth
`
`at length in his declaration herein, not to the basis on which Patent Owner seeks to
`
`prove its positions.
`
`With regard to Exhibit 2008, Google offers no legal support for the
`
`proposition that decisions from the ITC should be disregarded in the wholesale
`
`manner sought by Google’s motion.
`
`I.
`
`GOOGLE FAILS TO SHOW THAT EXHIBITS 2003, 2004, AND 2009
`ARE IMPROPER HEARSAY
`
`“‘Hearsay’ means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while
`
`testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove
`
`the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” FRE 801(c). The challenged
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`statements from Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are not offered to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, as WAG has submitted and relies on the independent
`
`conclusions of its own expert, Mr. Hoarty, for such matters. Rather, the challenged
`
`statements are provided for what they describe, and thus are not subject to
`
`exclusion under FRE 802. See TCL Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`
`IPR2015-01602 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017), Paper 40 at 37 (denying motion to exclude
`
`where the challenged exhibits “are offered for what they describe, and not for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted.”).
`
`Google’s motion (at 5) refers to Patent Owner’s arguments in an effort to
`
`show that the Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are used to prove the truth of what
`
`they assert. However, the motion only points to arguments that invoke Exhibit
`
`2009, a transcript of Amazon’s expert Dr. Jeffay expressing the same conclusions
`
`as Mr. Hoarty on the disclosures of Carmel. The arguments, however, are based on
`
`Mr. Hoarty’s opinions that are thoroughly corroborated by Exhibit 2009.
`
`The point in the Sur-reply that Google objects to is an argument that
`
`addresses inherency, which (as the Sur-reply points out (at 11)) Google itself only
`
`raised for the first time in its Reply.
`
`The fact that Mr. Hoarty found that others had reached the same conclusions
`
`as him is certainly something that Patent Owner is entitled to argue on its own
`
`behalf. The referenced bullet points in the Sur-reply are directed at statements by
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`another expert that mirror the conclusions reached by Mr. Hoarty himself as
`
`addressed in the POR (a congruence that Mr. Hoarty himself had noted in his
`
`declaration).
`
`Such statements constitute permissible argument to rebut a fallacious
`
`allegation advanced by Google in its Reply as to the alleged inherency of
`
`individual element requests under the HTTP protocol. WAG’s technical arguments
`
`rely on Mr. Hoarty’s testimony, which itself was comprehensive in this regard, and
`
`which did not rely upon the challenged exhibits to reach the ultimate conclusions
`
`therein, as addressed below.
`
`Concerning footnote 10 of the POR, which Google also objects to, WAG
`
`does not present the “prior testimony of Dr. Kevin Jeffay” (Motion at 7) as forming
`
`a basis for Mr. Hoarty’s own opinions, but rather, to support the reasonableness of
`
`Mr. Hoarty’s analysis, pointing out that Dr. Jeffay’s ITC testimony aligns
`
`completely with Mr. Hoarty’s independent conclusion that both Figures 6A and 6B
`
`of Carmel represent “push” embodiments. See POR at 33 n.10 (“Patent Owner’s
`
`expert agrees with the characterization in prior testimony of Dr. Kevin Jeffay….”).
`
`WAG submits that it is entitled to point out by way of argument that Mr.
`
`Hoarty is by no means alone in his opinions and has thus proffered credible
`
`conclusions. The arguments Google objects to are therefore not subject to FRE
`
`802.
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`The Board should also deny this motion because “there is a strong public
`
`policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to
`
`the public.” Pelican Biothermal, LLC, v. VA-Q-TEC AG, PGR2021-00085 (PTAB
`
`June 16, 2023), Paper 35 at 30.
`
`II. MR. HOARTY DOES NOT RELY ON THE CHALLENGED
`EXHIBITS TO REACH HIS CONCLUSIONS
`
`Google objects under FRE 703 to Mr. Hoarty’s citation of Exhibits 2003,
`
`2004, 2008, and 2009 in his expert declaration (Exhibit 2002). Motion at 2 n.1. The
`
`citations in Exhibit 2002 that are objected to are in ¶ 67 (citing Exhibit 2003);
`
`¶¶ 65-67 (citing Exhibit 2004); ¶ 74 (citing Exhibit 2008); and ¶¶ 54, 65, 66 (citing
`
`Exhibit 2009). Simple inspection of these paragraphs, however, quickly reveals
`
`that statements in these exhibits are being used to corroborate as well as explain
`
`opinions Mr. Hoarty had already formed and thus go to the reliability and
`
`credibility of Mr. Hoarty’s opinions.
`
`The referenced paragraphs make clear that Mr. Hoarty did not rely on the
`
`statements in these exhibits as the basis for his own opinions, but instead used
`
`them to show that other people of skill in the art view aspects of Carmel in the
`
`same way that Mr. Hoarty himself views them, or to address inconsistencies in the
`
`contrary statements of others. E.g., EX2002 ¶ 54 (Mr. Hoarty’s conclusions are
`
`also “explained by Dr. Jeffay”); id. ¶ 65 (“My view that Carmel consistently
`
`discloses push embodiments is also reflected in prior testimony by Dr. Jeffay
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`concerning Carmel”); id. ¶ 66 (“Dr. Jeffay likewise stated at his deposition that the
`
`process shown in Fig. 6B of Carmel represents a push” and addressing a related
`
`inconsistent position of Dr. Jeffay); id. ¶ 67 (addressing inconsistent statements of
`
`Dr. Jeffay); id. ¶ 74 (observing that “(ITC decision [made] a similar observation”
`
`to Mr. Hoarty’s independent conclusions).
`
`Because Mr. Hoarty did not base his ultimate conclusions simply on what he
`
`read from these other sources, Mr. Hoarty’s statements are not proper subjects for
`
`Google’s motion to strike under FRE 703. Alaska Fuel, IPR2019-00995, Paper 32
`
`at 12-13 (“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that … Patent Owner is
`
`not relying on the statements for the truth of the matter asserted but for the
`
`independent purposes of showing how the Frac Shack was marketed and how it
`
`was regarded by those in the market.”); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l
`
`GmbH, IPR2022-00796 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2023), Paper 45 at 102 (“Petitioner relies
`
`on Goadsby, not for the truth of its assertions. Rather, Petitioner relies on Goadsby
`
`for the non-hearsay purpose of showing its effect on the hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.”); Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Shockwave Med., Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-00405 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2023), Paper 99 at 81 (“Patent Owner does not rely
`
`on statements made in these exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted…. Rather,
`
`Patent Owner relies upon these statements to show that industry actors took notice
`
`of and commented on the Shockwave device.”). Indeed, as the complained-of
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`statements are offered to highlight the credibility of Mr. Hoarty’s opinions, this
`
`Board may properly consider them. PNC Bank, N.A. v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, IPR2021-
`
`01073 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2023), Paper 72 at 76 (finding that alleged hearsay
`
`statements may be “helpful to judge Dr. Mowry’s credibility”).1
`
`Furthermore, as prior decisions have observed, “policy considerations for
`
`excluding expert testimony, such as those implemented by the gatekeeping
`
`framework established by the Supreme Court in Daubert . . . are less compelling in
`
`bench proceedings such as inter partes reviews than in jury trials.” Protect Animals
`
`with Satellites v. Onpoint Sys., LLC, IPR2021-01483 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2023), Paper
`
`69 at 63 () (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should decline to strike any
`
`portions of the declaration of Mr. Hoarty (EX2002).
`
`III. EXHIBIT 2008 AS A REASONED DECISION OF A SISTER
`TRIBUNAL IS BOTH RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE
`
`Exhibit 2008 is a decision issued by the ITC that discusses the Carmel
`
`reference and finds that it operates as WAG argues herein. Patent Owner cites it as
`
`persuasive authority. It is relevant because the ITC interpreted the same disclosures
`
`
`1 Google had the opportunity to depose Mr. Hoarty, but failed to make any inquiry
`
`as to Mr. Hoarty’s citations of any of the challenged exhibits.
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`of Carmel that are disputed in the present case in a manner that agrees with Patent
`
`Owner’s analysis of those disclosures, and is inconsistent with Google’s.2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Google’s motion to
`
`exclude.
`
`Dated: December 7, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Ronald Abramson/
`Ronald Abramson
`(Attorney for Patent Owner)
`Reg. No. 34,762
`212-257-1630
`
`
`2 Patent Owner has also requested to file supplemental authority on recent PTAB
`
`appeal decision in a related case that also reads the pertinent disclosures of Carmel
`
`as reflecting transmission of a stream triggered by a single request, as Patent
`
`Owner argues herein based on Mr. Hoarty’s testimony, as the prior testimony of
`
`another expert (Dr. Jeffay) has confirmed, and as noted above, was accepted by the
`
`ITC.
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01413
`Patent 9,762,636
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies that on December
`
`7, 2023, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude was provided to the Petitioner by filing through the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System and via email, as authorized in
`
`Petitioner’s mandatory notices, by serving the following email address:
`
`egardner@cooley.com
`oarmon@cooley.com
`nsoni@cooley.com
`
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`thomas.fuller@us.dlapiper.com
`Jennifer.nall@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Ronald Abramson/
`Ronald Abramson
`(Attorney for Patent Owner)
`Reg. No. 34,762
`212-257-1630
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`