`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MEDIVIS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOVARAD CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00042
`
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO
`EXHIBITS FILED WITH PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Medivis, Inc., objects to any
`
`reference to, or reliance on, Exhibits 2002-2005, which Novarad Corp. served on
`
`July 18, 2023, with its Patent Owner Response (hereinafter, the Response).1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Petitioner’s objections apply the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“F.R.E.”), among other applicable rules.
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Exhibit 2002 (Mulumudi Declaration)
`
`Exhibit 2002 is the Declaration of Mahesh S. Mulumudi, M.D., that was
`
`1.
`
`signed on July 18, 2023 (“Mulumudi Dec.”).
`
`Dr. Mulumudi is Not an Expert in the Relevant Field
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002 in its entirety under F.R.E. 702(a) (expert
`
`witness-specialized knowledge) because Dr. Mulumudi does not have the type of
`
`“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of
`
`fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue” in the relevant field to
`
`qualify as a technical expert in this matter. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).
`
`The Petition identified “systems and methods for using augmented reality
`
`during medical procedures” as the relevant field. Pet. at 10 (quoting Kazanzides
`
`Decl., Ex. 1012, ¶ 23). Dr. Mulumudi merely acknowledges Dr. Kazanzides’
`
`
`1 Patent Owner Novarad did not file a patent owner preliminary response.
`1
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`conclusion that “the relevant art is ‘systems and methods for using augmented
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`reality during medical procedures.’” Ex. 2002, ¶ 31 (quoting Kazanzides Decl.,
`
`Ex. 1012, ¶ 23).
`
`According to Exhibit 2003, Dr. Mulumudi is an interventional cardiologist
`
`with expertise in treating peripheral vascular diseases and coronary artery disease.
`
`None of Dr. Mulumudi’s itemized experience, training, research, publications, or
`
`patents relate to the pertinent field, “systems and methods for using augmented
`
`reality during medical procedures.” While Exhibit 2003 includes sections titled
`
`“Imaging Experience”
`
`and
`
`“Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality With
`
`Biofeedback,” both of which contain vague descriptions of certain purported
`
`proficiencies, neither section
`
`includes any corroborating
`
`information or
`
`explanation regarding the nature and extent of his experience with these
`
`technologies, nor does Dr. Mulumudi explain how these experiences qualify him to
`
`opine, as an expert, on the technology of the challenged patents and the pertinent
`
`field. Indeed, Dr. Mulumudi himself only claims to be qualified to provide expert
`
`opinions on “some aspects of the technology described in the ‘271 Patent and on
`
`the references cited by Petitioner and Dr. Kazanzides.” Ex. 2002, ¶ 29 (emphasis
`
`added). Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 702(a) (expert-specialized knowledge) because the
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Patent Owner has not established that Dr. Mulumudi is qualified to testify as an
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`2.
`
`expert in the relevant field.
`
`The Mulumudi Dec. Does Not Meet the Requirements of Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 26
`
`Petitioner objects to the Mulumudi Dec. as insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26, as this expert disclosure does not meet the requirements for expert disclosures
`
`under the Federal Rules. Rule 26 requires that all written disclosures include a
`
`disclosure of “a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the
`
`witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(a)(2)(B)(v). Paragraph 28 of the Mulumudi Dec., Exhibit 2002, generally refers
`
`to the “attached CV,” presumably meaning Exhibit 2003, which merely lists three
`
`occasions on which he was retained as an expert witness, but does not identify the
`
`cases with sufficient particularity for Petitioner to locate or review the matters at
`
`issue.
`
`Furthermore, Rule 26 also requires a disclosure of “all publications authored
`
`in the previous 10 years.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(iv). Exhibit 2003 includes
`
`what purports to be a list of “Papers and Abstracts,” but it is unclear whether that
`
`list meets the requirements of the rule because that list appears to end in 2003.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as
`
`insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, because (a) it neither provides nor references
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`a sufficient identification of the previous instances that Dr. Mulumudi has provided
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`expert testimony and (b) it is unclear whether it provides or references a complete
`
`list of Dr. Mulumudi’s publications from the previous 10 years.
`
`3.
`
`The Mulumudi Dec. Is Not Supported By Sufficient Facts or
`Data
`
`a.
`
`Dr. Mulumudi Does Not Disclose Who He Considers a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Nor When He
`Considers the Time of the Invention
`The Petition asserts “the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time … (POSA)[aka POSITA] would be ‘a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of
`
`experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices
`
`either (a) familiar with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data
`
`for medical procedures or (b) working with a team including someone with such
`
`familiarity.’” Pet. at 10 (quoting Kazanzides Decl., Ex. 1012, ¶ 25). The
`
`Mulumudi Dec. merely acknowledges Petitioner’s definition of the POSITA. Ex.
`
`2002, ¶ 32 (quoting Kazanzides Decl., Ex. 1012, ¶ 25). The Mulumudi Dec. also
`
`acknowledges Petitioner’s assumption that the relevant time for the ‘271 patent is
`
`“on or before March 30, 2017.” Ex. 2002, ¶ 8 (citing Petition at 10).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., under F.R.E. 702(b)
`
`(expert witness-sufficient facts or data) and F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance), because it
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`is unclear how Dr. Mulumudi defines both a POSITA for the challenged patent and
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`the time of the invention. Dr. Mulumudi asserts “I understand that my opinion
`
`must be taken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the invention.”
`
`Ex. 2002, ¶ 30. But nowhere in the Mulumudi Dec. does Dr. Mulumudi disclose
`
`how he defines a POSITA for the challenged patent and how he defines the time of
`
`the invention of the challenged patent. Nor does Dr. Mulumudi purport to adopt or
`
`apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA for the challenged patent and/or
`
`Petitioner’s assumed time. Therefore, each opinion regarding the perspective of a
`
`POSITA is not supported by sufficient facts or data. Because it is unknown how
`
`Dr. Mulumudi defines a POSITA for the challenged patent and how he defines the
`
`time of the invention, his opinions as to the perspective of a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention are unsupported by sufficient facts or data and are therefore
`
`irrelevant to the IPR. Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002 as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 702(b) (expert testimony-insufficient
`
`facts and data). b.
`
`Dr. Mulumudi’s Opinions are Ipse Dixit
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 702(b) (expert testimony-insufficient facts or data) because Dr.
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Mulumudi’s opinions are largely unsupported ipse dixit. The Mulumudi Dec.
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`provides dozens of opinions, but for the most part the opinions are completely
`
`unsupported assertions. At most the Mulumudi Dec. cites to portions of the
`
`challenged patent or the prior art and then forms a conclusion without tying the
`
`conclusion to the cited text. Unsupported ipse dixit of an expert is inadmissible.
`
`See F.R.E. 702(b) (an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient facts or data”);
`
`§ 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”); Xerox Corp. v.
`
`Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 (Aug 24, 2022) (designated
`
`precedential Feb. 10, 2023) (declining to credit expert testimony that does not
`
`disclose underlying facts or data); see also Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`
`127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`or in [Federal Circuit] jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the
`
`unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). Therefore, Petitioner objects to
`
`Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as inadmissible under F.R.E. 702(b) (expert
`
`4.
`
`testimony-insufficient facts or data).
`
`Dr. Mulumudi Cannot Opine Regarding the Perspective of a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 702(a) (expert testimony-specialized knowledge) and F.R.E. 401-402
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`(relevance). As discussed above, it is uncertain how Dr. Mulumudi defines a
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`POSITA with respect to the challenged patent. But under the definition presented
`
`by Petitioner, which is the only definition offered in this IPR, Dr. Mulumudi does
`
`not qualify as a POSITA at least because (a) Dr. Mulumudi’s education as a
`
`medical doctor and Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology are not “related” to
`
`degrees in computer science or electrical engineering and (b) he does not have
`
`“several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented
`
`reality devices.” Dr. Mulumudi asserts “I understand that my opinion must be
`
`taken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the invention.” Ex.
`
`2002, ¶ 30. But Dr. Mulumudi is not qualified to opine regarding the perspective
`
`of a POSITA because he has neither (a) the qualification nor (b) the experience
`
`required by the only definition of a POSITA for the challenged patent that has been
`
`offered in this IPR. See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369,
`
`1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding that a technical expert must at least meet the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the asserted patents to testify from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art). Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002,
`
`the Mulumudi Dec., as inadmissible under F.R.E. 702(a) (expert testimony-
`
`specialized knowledge) and F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance) because Dr. Mulumudi is
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`not qualified to opine regarding the challenged claims or the prior art from the
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`5.
`
`perspective of a POSITA.
`
`Dr. Mulumudi’s Opinions Rely on Improper Claim
`Construction
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance) because it is premised on incorrect claim
`
`construction. An expert opinion that is premised on incorrect construction of the
`
`claims is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. See e.g., Hoist Fitness Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Tuffstuff Fitness Int’l, Inc., No. 2020-1047, 2020 WL 5868294, at *7 n.9 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (affirming exclusion of technical expert’s opinion that failed to apply the
`
`district court’s construction).
`
`Here, in its Institution Decision, the Board expressly adopted the Petitioner’s
`
`construction of certain terms, and declined to construe any other terms (thereby
`
`applying the plain and ordinary meaning). See Institution Decision at 7 (“For the
`
`purposes of this Decision, and based on the record now before us, we adopt
`
`Petitioner’s constructions of ‘three-dimensional (3D) data,’ ‘3D data,’ ‘virtual 3D
`
`shape,’ and ‘being having,’ …”). In the Mulumudi Dec., after opining that certain
`
`terms have meanings other than those preliminarily adopted by the Board, Dr.
`
`Mulumudi made determinations regarding anticipation and obviousness that were
`
`premised solely on his preferred constructions. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, ¶ 85 (Doo …
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`does not disclose … a direct volume rendering ….”); ¶ 101 (“Doo does not
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`disclose 3D ‘inner layers’ that can be confined (i.e., navigated) ….”). Dr.
`
`Mulumudi never analyzes whether the Petitioner’s asserted prior art discloses the
`
`claims under the Board’s preliminary constructions. Therefore, under the Board’s
`
`preliminary constructions, Dr. Mulumudi’s opinions as to anticipation and
`
`obviousness are irrelevant and Petitioner objects to those irrelevant opinions as
`
`6.
`
`inadmissible under F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance).
`
`Dr. Mulumudi Gives Opinions that are Not Relied Upon By the
`Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner objects to any opinion in Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., that is
`
`not explicitly relied upon by the Patent Owner in its Response, as inadmissible
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), which bars “incorporat[ion] by reference from one
`
`document into another document.” Because the Patent Owner cannot incorporate
`
`any opinion or argument “by reference,” to the extent that the Mulumudi Dec.
`
`contains an opinion or argument not explicitly presented by the Patent Owner in its
`
`Response, that portion of the Mulumudi Dec. is inadmissible and may not be relied
`
`upon by the Patent Owner in this proceeding or any related appeal. Therefore,
`
`Petitioner objects to any portion of Exhibit 2002, the Mulumudi Dec., that is not
`
`explicitly presented in the Patent Owner’s Response as inadmissible under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 2003 (Cahn Litigation Services Expert No.: 28179)
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Exhibit 2003 is a document of Cahn Litigation Services Expert No.: 28179,
`
`Mahesh S. Mulumudi, M.D. The Response lists Exhibit 2003 as Dr. Mulumudi’s
`
`C.V. in the Exhibit List, but otherwise never references it. Petitioner objects to any
`
`arguments reliant on any portion of Exhibit 2003 that is not explicitly referenced in
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response as inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`C.
`
`Exhibit 2004 (Rosenberg Declaration)
`
`Exhibit 2004 is the Declaration of Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D., that was signed
`
`on July 17, 2023 (“Rosenberg Dec.”).
`
`1.
`
`The Rosenberg Dec. Does Not Meet the Requirements of Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 26
`
`Petitioner objects to the Rosenberg Dec. as insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26. Rule 26 requires that all written disclosures include a disclosure of “a list of all
`
`other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert
`
`at trial or by deposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(v). Paragraph 36 of the
`
`Rosenberg Dec. generally refers to the “attached CV,” presumably meaning
`
`Exhibit 2005, which provides both a selection of “VR and AR cases” and a list of
`
`“Testifying Experience.” But due to the lack of dates and other relevant
`
`information in Exhibit 2005, it is unclear whether these lists include all other cases
`
`in which Dr. Rosenberg has testified in the last 4 years.
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Rule 26 also requires a disclosure of “all publications authored in the
`
`previous 10 years.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(iv). As Exhibit 2005 includes only
`
`“Selected Publications/Presentations,” again it is unclear whether this disclosure
`
`meets the requirements of the rule.
`
`Finally, Exhibit 2005 appears not to have been updated for more than a year.
`
`See Ex. 2005 at 6, footer (“Revision – April 2022”) (emphasis added). The fact
`
`that Exhibit 2005 appears on its face to have been last updated more than a year
`
`before the July 2023 date of the Rosenberg Dec. calls into question whether
`
`Novarad satisfied Rule 26’s mandatory disclosures as to Rosenberg.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., as
`
`inadmissible for failure to meet the requirements of Rule 26 because (a) it neither
`
`provides nor references a sufficient identification of the previous instances that Dr.
`
`Rosenberg has provided expert testimony and (b) it is unclear whether it provides
`
`or references a complete list of Dr. Rosenberg’s publications from the previous 10
`
`years.
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`The Rosenberg Dec. Is Not Supported By Sufficient Facts or
`Data
`
`Dr. Rosenberg Does Not Disclose Who He Considers a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Nor When He
`Considers the Time of the Invention
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec. under F.R.E. 702(b)
`
`(expert witness-insufficient facts or data) and 401-402 (relevance), because it is
`
`unclear who Dr. Rosenberg considers a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
`
`challenged patent and when he considers to be the time of the invention. Nowhere
`
`in the Rosenberg Dec. does Dr. Rosenberg disclose how he defines POSITA for
`
`the challenged patent and when he defines as the time of the invention of the
`
`challenged patent. Dr. Rosenberg acknowledges Petitioner’s POSITA definition
`
`for the challenged patent and Petitioner’s assumed time of the invention. See Ex.
`
`2004, ¶ 41 (acknowledging Petitioner’s definition of POSITA for the challenged
`
`patent), ¶ 8 (acknowledging “the time of the ‘271 patent, which Petitioner has
`
`assumed to be on or before March 30, 2017.”). Then Dr. Rosenberg asserts a
`
`“POSITA at the time of the ‘271 patent would include someone with a degree in
`
`human factors or human computer interaction,” and explains that position.
`
`definition and Petitioner’s assumed time. Ex. 2004, ¶ 42. By including a human
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`factors degree as within a definition of a POSITA, Dr. Rosenberg does not appear
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`to be identifying the metes and bounds of a POSITA.2
`
`Nor does Dr. Rosenberg purport to adopt or apply Petitioner’s definition of
`
`POSITA for the challenged patent or Petitioner’s assumed time of the invention.
`
`Dr. Rosenberg asserts “I understand that my opinion must be taken from the
`
`perspective of what would have been known or understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (‘POSITA’) at the time of the invention.” Ex. 2004, ¶ 39. Because
`
`it is unknown how Dr. Rosenberg defines the POSITA for the challenged patent
`
`and the time of the invention, his opinions as to the perspective of a POSITA at the
`
`time of the invention are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are therefore
`
`irrelevant to the IPR. Therefore, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg
`
`Dec., as inadmissible under F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 702(b) (expert
`
`testimony-insufficient facts or data).
`
`
`2 If Dr. Rosenberg does define a POSITA as a person with a degree in human
`
`factors or human computer interaction, then Petitioner objects to any testimony by
`
`Dr. Mulumudi because Dr. Mulumudi is clearly not qualified as a POSITA under
`
`that definition.
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`b.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Dr. Rosenberg’s Opinions are Ipse Dixit
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 702(b) (expert testimony-insufficient facts or data) because Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinions are largely unsupported ipse dixit. The Rosenberg Dec.
`
`provides dozens of opinions, but for the most part the opinions are completely
`
`unsupported assertions. At most the Rosenberg Dec. cites to portions of the
`
`challenged patent or the prior art and then forms a conclusion without tying the
`
`conclusion to the cited text. Unsupported ipse dixit of the expert is inadmissible.
`
`See F.R.E. 702(b) (an expert opinion must be “based on sufficient facts or data”);
`
`§ 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight”); Xerox Corp. v.
`
`Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 (Aug 24, 2022) (designated
`
`precedential Feb. 10, 2023) (declining to credit expert testimony that does not
`
`disclose underlying facts or data); see also Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`
`127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`or the [Federal Circuit] jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit the
`
`unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”). Therefore, Petitioner objects to
`
`Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., as inadmissible under F.R.E. 702(b) (expert
`
`testimony-insufficient facts or data).
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`Dr. Rosenberg’s Opinions Rely on Improper Claim
`Construction
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., as inadmissible
`
`under F.R.E. 401-402 (relevance) because certain opinions are premised on
`
`incorrect claim construction. An expert opinion that is premised on incorrect
`
`construction of the claims is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. See e.g., Hoist
`
`Fitness Sys., Inc. v. Tuffstuff Fitness Int’l, Inc., No. 2020-1047, 2020 WL 5868294,
`
`at *7 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming exclusion of technical expert’s opinion that
`
`failed to apply the district court’s construction).
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board expressly adopted the Petitioner’s
`
`construction of certain terms, and declined to construe any other terms (thereby
`
`applying the plain and ordinary meaning). See Institution Decision at 7. In the
`
`Rosenberg Dec., after opining that certain terms have meanings other than those
`
`preliminarily adopted by the Board, Dr. Rosenberg provided opinions regarding
`
`anticipation and obviousness that were premised solely on his preferred
`
`constructions. For example, although not part of its proposed construction for the
`
`claim element, Novarad asserts that “confined within a virtual 3D shape” means
`
`“navigable within a volume of a virtual tool that assists the user when navigating
`
`the projected 3D data.” See Response at 64 (“[P]rojected 3D data is confined (i.e.,
`
`navigable) within a volume of a virtual 3D shape[, which] is a virtual tool that
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`‘assist[s] the user when navigating the projected 3D data.’”). Dr. Rosenberg relies
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`on Novarad’s asserted construction to draw conclusions as to obviousness in view
`
`of Amira and 3D Visualization. See, e.g., Ex. 2004, ¶ 137 (“Amira does not
`
`disclose that its skin model can be used to ‘assist the user when navigating the
`
`projected 3D data.’”), ¶ 138 (“Amira does not disclose that its bounding box can be
`
`used to ‘assist the user when navigating the projected 3D data.’”), ¶ 169 (“3D
`
`Visualization does not disclose that its box can be used to ‘assist the user when
`
`navigating the projected 3D data.’”). Dr. Rosenberg never considered whether the
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art discloses the claims under the Board’s preliminary
`
`constructions. Therefore, under the Board’s preliminary constructions, Dr.
`
`Rosenberg’s opinions as to anticipation and obviousness are irrelevant and
`
`Petitioner objects to those irrelevant opinions as inadmissible under F.R.E. 401-
`
`402 (relevance).
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Rosenberg Gives Opinions that are Not Relied Upon By the
`Patentee
`
`Petitioner objects to any opinion in Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., that is
`
`not explicitly relied upon by the Patent Owner in its Response, as inadmissible
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), which bars “incorporate[ion] by reference from one
`
`document into another document.” Because the Patent Owner cannot incorporate
`
`any opinion or argument “by reference,” to the extent that the Rosenberg Dec.
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`contains an opinion or argument not explicitly presented by the Patent Owner in its
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`
`
`Response, that portion of the Rosenberg Dec. is inadmissible and may not be relied
`
`upon by the Patent Owner in this proceeding or any related appeal. Therefore,
`
`Petitioner objects to any portion of Exhibit 2004, the Rosenberg Dec., that is not
`
`explicitly presented in the Patent Owner’s Response as inadmissible under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`D.
`
`Exhibit 2005 (Cahn Litigation Services Expert No.: 24686)
`
`Exhibit 2005 is a document of Cahn Litigation Services Expert No.: 24686,
`
`Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D. (Revision–April 2022). The Response lists Exhibit 2005
`
`as Dr. Rosenberg’s C.V. in the Exhibit List, but otherwise never references it.
`
`Petitioner objects to any arguments reliant on any portion of Exhibit 2005 that is
`
`not explicitly referenced in the Patent Owner’s Response as inadmissible under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner objects to any reference to, or
`
`reliance on Exhibits 2002-2005.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Kia L. Freeman
`
`Kia L. Freeman
`
`Registration No. 47,577
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on July 25, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS FILED WITH
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE to be served by filing this document with the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board and by delivering a copy by e-mail to the email
`
`addresses of the patent owner’s attorneys of record in the patent owner’s latest
`
`mandatory notice:
`
`joseph.harmer@tnw.com; and
`
`hansen@tnw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ John Curran
`
`John Curran (Reg. No. 50,455)
`
`
`
`ME1 45569689v.2
`
`19
`
`