`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS 2023-2027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`In its opposition to Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 2023-2027,
`
`Patent Owner does not seriously dispute the substantive proposition that dictionary
`
`definitions that are not contemporary with the challenged patent are not proper
`
`extrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. See, e.g., Inverness Med.
`
`Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002). Each of Exhibits 2023-2027 presents a definition that is nearly a
`
`decade removed from the date of the ’715 patent. Given that fact, the exhibits are
`
`simply not relevant and should be excluded.
`
`Patent Owner’s suggestion that it did not rely on Exhibits 2023-2027
`
`directly, but instead relied on the declaration of Mr. Lipoff (who in turn relied on
`
`the exhibits) is unavailing. See Paper 32 at 1. First, the Patent Owner Response
`
`cites Exhibit 2025 directly, rather than citing Mr. Lipoff’s testimony regarding that
`
`exhibit. POR, 29. Second, although Mr. Lipoff claimed his analysis was “as of the
`
`effective priority date” of the ’715 patent, he did not account for the temporal
`
`distance between the dates of the exhibits and the date of the ’715 patent. EX2022,
`
`¶¶ 41, 116–17, 121. In short, Mr. Lipoff’s declaration functions as a vehicle to
`
`allow Patent Owner to rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence.
`
`Patent Owner also misleadingly suggests that “the PTAB often cites modern
`
`dictionaries when construing claim terms from older patents.” Paper 32 at 2. That
`
`assertion ignores, however, that the Board’s reliance on dictionary evidence was
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`not seriously disputed in any case cited by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2022-00633, Paper 36 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28,
`
`2023); LinkedIn Corp. v. eBuddy Techs. B.V., IPR2022-00165, Paper 40 at 12
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 30, 2023); Packers Plus Energy Servs. Inc. v. Baker Hughes
`
`Oilfield Ops., Inc., IPR2016-01099, Paper 30 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019);
`
`Vivint, Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC, IPR2022-01365, Paper 8 at 13 (P.T.A.B. Apr.
`
`26, 2023). Here, on the other hand, Petitioner objects to the use of non-
`
`contemporary dictionary evidence, and Patent Owner has provided no basis to
`
`believe that evidence is relevant to the construction of any claim term as of the date
`
`of the ’715 patent.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s sweeping assertion that Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`403 is “not applicable here” is incorrect. Paper 32 at 5. Although “the risk of unfair
`
`prejudice is diminished” when the Board acts as fact-finder, see Trend Micro Inc.
`
`v. Cupp Computing AS, IPR2019-00765, Paper 30 at 4–5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25,
`
`2020), the Board has never adopted a blanket rule prohibiting the application of
`
`Rule 403. At its core, Rule 403 presents a balancing test, requiring the Board to
`
`determine whether the “probative value” of evidence “is substantially outweighed
`
`by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence.” F.R.E. 403. Petitioner’s position is that Exhibits 2023-2027
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`are not relevant, i.e., they have no probative value. To the extent the Board
`
`concludes that the exhibits have some minimal probative value, that probative
`
`value is outweighed by any unfair prejudice that would inure to Petitioner from
`
`relying on evidence that is not contemporary with the ’715 patent.
`
`For the reasons explained in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 31),
`
`Exhibits 2023-2027 are not relevant because they are non-contemporary dictionary
`
`definitions used to support Patent Owner’s faulty claim construction positions.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should exclude those exhibits under Rules 401, 402, and
`
`403. Should the Board admit any of Exhibits 2023-2027, Petitioner maintains its
`
`position that the exhibits lack any probative value regarding a fact of consequence
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/ Aliza George Carrano /
`Aliza George Carrano
`PTO Reg. No. 70,637
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00757
`Patent 8,989,715
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on July 30, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`