`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE ENTIRETY OF EXHIBITS 2003, 2004, AND 2009 ARE
`INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY ........................................................................ 2
`A.
`PO and Mr. Hoarty Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 for
`the Truth of the Matter Asserted .......................................................... 3
`III. EXHIBIT 2008 IS IRRELEVANT................................................................. 5
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Alaska Fuel Distributors v. Frac Shack, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00995, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2020) ............................................ 4
`Cardiovascular Systems v. Shockwave Medical, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00405, Paper 99 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2023) .............................................. 5
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International, GmbH,
`IPR2022-00796, Paper 45 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2023) ........................................ 4, 5
`PNC Bank NA v. United Services Automobile Association,
`IPR2021-01073, Paper 72 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2023) ............................................ 5
`The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00135, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) ........................................... 2
`Other Authorities
`Federal Rules of Evidence
`401 ......................................................................................................................... 2
`403 ......................................................................................................................... 2
`801(c) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`PO’s Opposition (Paper No. 26 (“Opp.”)) to Google’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper No. 25 (“Motion”)) attempts to recharacterize PO’s and Mr. Hoarty’s reliance
`
`on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 as for reasons unrelated to the truth of the
`
`statements. But PO’s Patent Owner Response (Paper No. 10 (“POR”)), Sur-Reply
`
`(Paper No. 16), and Mr. Hoarty’s Declaration (Exhibit 2002) belie PO’s recasting.
`
`When PO and Mr. Hoarty cite these exhibits, they do so as purported evidence of
`
`the truth of the matter asserted—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret Carmel (Exhibit 1003) in a particular way. (See, e.g., Sur-Reply at 11-13
`
`(citing Exhibit 2009); POR at 33 n.10.)
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 constitute expert testimony from experts not
`
`involved in this proceeding whom Google never had the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine. Like the excluded expert testimony in the cases cited by Google—cases
`
`PO does not mention, let alone distinguish on any grounds—these exhibits should
`
`be excluded. (See Motion at 5-8.)
`
`The intention of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay is to exclude
`
`such out-of-court statements when they are offered for the truth of the statements, as
`
`they are here. Even if PO and Mr. Hoarty are allegedly relying on these exhibits for
`
`“corroboration” or to show that other experts have “express[ed] the same
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`conclusions as Mr. Hoarty on the disclosures of Carmel” (see Opp. at 3), to be
`
`“corroborat[ory,]” the statements must be taken as true.
`
`With respect to Exhibit 2008, which Google objects to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) 401 and 403, PO states in a conclusory fashion that the ITC Initial
`
`Determination is “relevant,” and does not refute Google’s distinctions between the
`
`analysis in the Initial Determination and here. (See Opp. at 7-8.)
`
`For these reasons, and as explained further below, Google respectfully
`
`requests that the Board grant Google’s Motion and exclude Exhibits 2003, 2004,
`
`2008, and 2009 from this IPR.
`
`II. THE ENTIRETY OF EXHIBITS 2003, 2004, AND 2009 ARE
`INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are in their entirety the types of exhibits that
`
`the Board has previously excluded from IPRs—they are deposition transcripts,
`
`declarations, and hearing transcripts that constitute expert testimony from other
`
`cases involving other parties and are from experts that Google did not have an
`
`opportunity to cross-examine. As explained in Google’s Motion (at 5-8), and
`
`unrefuted by PO, the Board has previously excluded expert evidence as hearsay
`
`under similar circumstances. See The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd.,
`
`IPR2022-00135, Paper 51, 82 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) (“We agree with [p]etitioner
`
`that prior testimony from another case, which is not subject to cross-examination by
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`the opposing party, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter.”).
`
`Thus, PO’s exhibits are entirely 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.” FRE 801(c).
`
`A.
`
`PO and Mr. Hoarty Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 for the
`Truth of the Matter Asserted
`PO and Mr. Hoarty rely on these exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted—
`
`to allegedly show “that others had reached the same conclusions as him[.]” (See
`
`Opp. at 3.) Despite admitting this, PO attempts to recharacterize the reliance on
`
`these exhibits as merely providing “corroborat[ion]” to Mr. Hoarty’s opinions. (Id.
`
`at 2-7.) This argument makes no sense. The only way these exhibits could possibly
`
`provide “corroborat[ion]” is if the statements were treated as true. For example, PO
`
`and Mr. Hoarty attempt to rely on testimony from Dr. Jeffay—an expert not involved
`
`in this case—as proof that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “view that
`
`Carmel consistently discloses push embodiments[,]” because Dr. Jeffay purportedly
`
`said so in an ITC matter in which Google was not involved. (See id. at 5-6 (citing
`
`Mr. Hoarty’s Decl. at ¶¶ 65-67, 74).) This is the definition of using an out-of-court
`
`statement (testimony from another matter not involving Google) for the purported
`
`truth of the matter asserted (that a person of ordinary skill in the art would view
`
`Carmel the way Dr. Jeffay purportedly explained).
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`If parties were allowed to rely on such statements—testimony from experts
`
`not involved in the present proceeding—under the guise of “corroborat[ion],” parties
`
`may be encouraged to play with the line between what the PTAB finds as
`
`“corroborat[ory]” and hearsay.1 Unsurprisingly, PO fails to cite any case where
`
`testimony from an unavailable expert was allowed as “corroborat[ion]” on the
`
`ultimate issue.
`
`Indeed, the cases cited by PO do not support its argument. In Alaska Fuel
`
`Distributors, the exhibits patent owner relied on were photographs, videos, and
`
`marketing materials for a product that patent owner and its expert contended
`
`practiced the challenged claims. IPR2019-00995, Paper 32, 12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15,
`
`2020). Similarly, in Eli Lilly & Co., the Board and petitioner were relying on
`
`
`1 Notably, in this case, more experts “corroborate” the opinions of Google’s expert,
`
`Nathaniel Polish, than those who “corroborate” the opinions of Mr. Hoarty. (See
`
`Reply (Paper No. 13) at 16-17 (noting that “at least 4 experts have expressed the
`
`understanding that Carmel discloses client-side control and ‘pull,’ while only PO’s
`
`expert has consistently asserted it discloses ‘push.’”) (citations omitted).)
`
`Nonetheless, Google is advancing the legal position that is correct—that such out-
`
`of-court expert statements are hearsay and should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`Goadsby, a clinical trial report, to support whether a person of ordinary skill “would
`
`have expected success” and not for the truth of Goadsby’s assertions. IPR2022-
`
`00796, Paper 45, 102-03 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2023). In Cardiovascular Systems, the
`
`patent owner was relying on news articles, materials from financial analysis or
`
`investment bankers, FDA materials, Yahoo Finance data, and a 10-Q submission for
`
`evidence of secondary indicia. IPR2019-00405, Paper 99, 80-82 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2,
`
`2023). Finally, in PNC Bank, the challenged exhibits were “web page printouts of
`
`articles”—not declarations, deposition
`
`transcripts, and hearing
`
`transcripts
`
`constituting out-of-court expert testimony. IPR2021-01073, Paper 72, 74-76
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2023).
`
`Here, the exhibits at issue are indisputably out-of-court statements, and PO is
`
`solely relying on the purported truth of those statements. Moreover, PO does not
`
`dispute these exhibits are “not the sort of ‘facts or data’ that experts in the field []
`
`would reasonably rely on in forming their own opinions.” (Motion at 10 (citation
`
`omitted).)
`
`III. EXHIBIT 2008 IS IRRELEVANT
`Exhibit 2008 is neither relevant nor probative—it is a nonbinding decision
`
`from an unrelated ITC investigation involving different parties, different patents,
`
`claims, and inventions, different experts, different analysis, and different testimony.
`
`(Motion at 10-12.) Thus, this exhibit too should be excluded.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., a complete copy of the attached
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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: December 14, 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`