`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00757
`Patent No. 8,989,715
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS 2023-2027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner Netflix, Inc., files this motion to
`
`exclude Exhibits 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027. Consistent with its obligations
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Netflix filed timely objections to those exhibits.
`
`Paper 23 at 3-4. In short, Exhibits 2023-2027 are inadmissible because they are not
`
`relevant; that is, they do not have any tendency to make a fact of consequence in
`
`this proceeding more or less probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. To the extent
`
`the exhibits have some minimal probative value, they should also be excluded
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 due to the risk of unfair prejudice and
`
`confusion of the issues. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Exhibits 2023-2027 are screenshots of dictionary entries obtained from
`
`various online sources. See Exs. 2023-2027. Patent Owner attempts to rely on these
`
`definitions as extrinsic evidence in support of its claim construction positions.
`
`Paper 21 at 16, 29. However, the definitions in those exhibits reflect, at best, what
`
`a POSITA would understand those terms to mean today, not at the time of the ’715
`
`patent. As the Federal Circuit has made clear, dictionary definitions are relevant
`
`only to the extent that they reflect a POSITA’s understanding of the term at the
`
`time of the patent. See, e.g., Inverness Med. Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton
`
`Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (considering dictionary
`
`definition “as of the date the patents issued”); Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix,
`
`Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202-03 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Dictionaries, encyclopedias and
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`treatises, publicly available at the time the patent is issued, are objective resources
`
`that serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings that
`
`would have been attributed to the terms of the claims by those of skill in the art”).1
`
`A simple examination of the exhibits confirms Netflix’s position. Exhibit
`
`2023 states on its face that the captured page was “[u]pdated” on November 22,
`
`2023. Ex. 2023. Exhibit 2024 lists on its face a copyright date of “2023.” Ex.
`
`2024. Exhibits 2025 and 2026 do not expressly provide any date, but navigating to
`
`the URLs2 listed in those two exhibits reveals a copyright date of 2024 in each
`
`instance. Finally, Exhibit 2027 states on its face that it “was last edited on 3
`
`
`1 Additional Federal Circuit case law suggests that the relevant date is the filing
`
`date, not the issue date of the patent. See Inverness, 309 F.3d at 1370 n.1 (citing
`
`Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc., 222 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In any event,
`
`the application that led to the ’715 patent was filed on April 18, 2013, and the
`
`patent issued on March 24, 2015. Regardless of which date is chosen, Exhibits
`
`2023-2027 lack relevance with respect to a POSITA’s understanding of the claim
`
`terms at that time.
`
`2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customized; https://www.merriam-
`
`webster.com/dictionary/from.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`January 2023.” Ex. 2027. Put simply, these exhibits all provide purported
`
`definitions of certain terms as of no earlier than 2023. They cannot be credible
`
`evidence of how a POSITA would have understood those terms as of nearly a
`
`decade prior, when the ’715 patent was filed and issued.
`
`Although Exhibits 2023 and 2024 recite other dates purportedly from before
`
`the issuance of the ’715 patent, they have not been authenticated in any respect
`
`(e.g., via the Wayback Machine); they appear to be merely screenshots or PDF
`
`print-outs of webpages taken prior to the filing of the POR. Patent Owner has
`
`failed to establish when, and to what extent, the webpages in those exhibits may
`
`have last been updated—and the more recent dates listed on those webpages are
`
`strong evidence that they may have been modified as recently as 2023.
`
`More importantly, even if the dictionary definitions in Exhibits 2023-2027
`
`were contemporaneous with the ’715 patent, they have minimal probative value on
`
`the ultimate issues of invalidity. For example, Patent Owner relies on Exhibit 2025
`
`to refute the Board’s Institution Decision discussion of the word “from,” which
`
`appears in the claim limitation “generated in part from.” Paper 21 at 29-30 (citing
`
`Paper 11 at 79). The word “from” is sufficiently clear on its face that the Board did
`
`not and does not need extrinsic evidence to understand its meaning. The same
`
`generally applies to the other definitions on which Patent Owner relies.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`Finally, even if the Board finds that Exhibits 2023-2027 have some minimal
`
`probative value as to how a POSITA would understand the claims of the ’715
`
`patent, the Board should exclude those exhibits under Rule 403 because any
`
`minimal probative value that the exhibits may have is “substantially outweighed”
`
`by the unfair prejudice and potential confusion of the issues that may occur if the
`
`exhibits are allowed to remain in evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Exhibits 2023-2027 should be excluded.
`
`Should the Board admit Exhibits 2023-2027, they should be ascribed substantially
`
`less weight as they are non-contemporary sources of extrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/ Aliza George Carrano /
`Aliza George Carrano
`PTO Reg. No. 70,637
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on July 16, 2024,
`
`a copy of the foregoing document was served by email directed to the following
`
`counsel of record and distribution list:
`
`Joshua S. Wyde
`jwyde@aatriallaw.com
`
`Steven T. Jugle
`sjugle@aatriallaw.com
`
`IPR2023-00757@aatriallaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` / Aliza George Carrano /
` Aliza George Carrano
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`