`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Filed: July 23, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC,
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2023-00758
`PATENT 8,478,245
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE (PAPER 30)
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................... iv
`I.
`Petitioner’s Relevancy Objections Should Be Denied as Weight
`Objections ........................................................................................................... 1
`II. Petitioner’s Omnibus FRE 403 Objection Is Unsupported, and/or
`Inapplicable, and the Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to
`Exclude under this Basis .................................................................................... 4
`III. Petitioner’s “Weight” Request Is Inappropriate and Petitioner’s
`Argument Should Be Ignored ............................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`IPR2022-00633-36 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2023) ........................................................... 2
`Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. CareFusion Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-09986, 2021 WL 428822 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2021)
`(Doc. 330) ...........................................................................................................2, 3
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................... 3
`Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Aortic Innovations, Inc., IPR2021-
`01527 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2023) (Paper 49) ............................................................... 2
`Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp.,
`635 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................. 5
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00010 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) (Paper 59) ............................................. 6
`LinkedIn Corp. v. eBuddy Techs. B.V.,
`IPR2022-00165-40 (PTAB June 30, 2023) ............................................................ 2
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967, 997 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
`(1996) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`Packers Plus Energy Servs. Inc. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Ops., Inc.,
`IPR2016-01099 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2019) ................................................................. 2
`Schultz v. Butcher,
`24 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 5
`Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AS,
`IPR2019-00765-30 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2020) ........................................................... 5
`Vivint, Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC,
`IPR2022-01365-8 (PTAB Apr. 26, 2023) .............................................................. 3
`No table of authorities entries found.Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) .................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(b) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Evid. 401–02 ................................................................................................. 1
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ....................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 79 (Nov. 2019) ....................................... 6
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST
`
`No. Brief Description
`2001 CAMPBELL-KELLY ET AL., Mainframes to Smartphones: A History of
`the International Computer Industry, Ch. 11 (Harvard Univ.
`Press 2015)
`2002 GALAZZO, Timeline from 1G to 5G: A Brief History on Cell Phones
`(Sept. 21, 2020), available at https://www.cengn.ca/information-
`centre/innovation/timeline-from-1g-to-5g-a-brief-history-on-cell-
`phones/
`2003 Cingular MEdia Mall Games and Motorola Page (March 23, 2006),
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060323054853/http://www-
`xl.cingularextras.com/fuel/enduser/portal/endUserHTMLDir?c1=
`3&dc=0 and
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060323054841/http://www-
`xl.cingularextras.com/fuel/enduser/portal/endUserHTMLSelectP
`hone?makeName=motorola&dc=0
`Suite, Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suite
`2005 U.S. Patent No. 7,380,205 to Bezrukov et al. (filed Oct. 28, 2003)
`2006
`Scheduling Order, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-
`07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb 14, 2023) (Doc. 62)
`2007 Klausner Decisions re Motions to Stay Pending IPR, Docket Navigator
`(generated June 8, 2023)
`2008 Order Granting Stipulated Stay Pending IPR, Flexstent, LLC v. Abbott
`Labs., No. 5-18-cv-02479 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (Doc.77)
`2009 Order Denying Renewed Stipulated Stay Pending IPR, Shenzhen
`Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02219
`(C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023) (Doc. 95)
`2010 Renewed Joint Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Inter
`Partes Reviews of ’653 Patent, Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce
`Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-02219 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11,
`2023) (Doc. 94)
`
`2004
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`No. Brief Description
`2011 Klausner Time to Trial in Patent Cases, Docket Navigator (generated
`June 8, 2023)
`2012 U.S. District Court—Judicial Caseload Profile for Central California
`from Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles (Mar. 31,
`2023), available at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na
`_distprofile0331.2023.pdf
`2013 Order Denying Netflix’s Motions, including for Invalidity under § 101,
`GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal.
`issued May 24, 2023) (Doc. 109)
`2014 Order re Scheduling Conference , GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. issued Feb. 13, 2023) (Doc. 61)
`Excerpts from Redacted and De-designated Corrected Declaration of
`Dr. John Villasenor Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,989,715; 8,478,245; and 8,103,865, GoTV Streaming, LLC v.
`Netflix, Inc., 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. served June 23, 2023)
`ZHANG, Systematic Approach to Construct and Assess Power
`Electronic Conversion Architectures Using Graph Theory and Its
`Application in a Fuel Cell System, 2019, Vol. 12 Iss. 6, pp.
`1499–1509, The Institution of Engineering and Technology
`(2019), available at
`https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1049/iet-
`pel.2018.6143
`2017 U.S. Patent No. 7,404,032 to Ware et al. filed July 13, 2004 (“Ware”).
`2018 Declaration of Joshua S. Wyde regarding authentication of exhibits
`(Aug. 17, 2023)
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript Day 2, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023)
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript Day 3, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023)
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`2025
`
`No. Brief Description
`2021 Defendant Netflix, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Rule 50(a) Motion for
`Judgment as a Matter of Law, GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023) (Dkt. 389)
`2022 Declaration of Mr. Stuart Lipoff
`2023 Generate, Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing, available at
`https://foldoc.org/generate (last updated June 15, 1995).
`2024 Output, TechTerms.com; The Computer Dictionary, available at
`https://techterms.com/definition/output (last updated December
`12, 2006)
`From, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/from (last visited
`December 12, 2023)
`2026 Customized, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customized (last
`visited Jan. 05, 2024)
`2027 Application-Specific, Wiktionary, available at
`https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/application-specific (last visited
`Dec. 15, 2023)
`Ticker, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, available at
`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ticker (last visited
`Jan. 18, 2024)
`2029 Deposition of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (Jan. 10, 2024)
`2030
`Second Declaration of Joshua S. Wyde regarding authentication of
`exhibits (Jan. 26, 2024)
`
`2028
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Relevancy Objections Should Be Denied as Weight
`Objections1
`Petitioner seeks to exclude Exhibits 2023–28 (“Exhibits”) as having no
`
`relevancy under FRE 401–02. Paper 30, Motion to Exclude (“MTE”) at 1.
`
`First, Petitioner’s says that “Patent Owner attempts to rely on these definitions
`
`as extrinsic evidence in support of its claim construction positions,” MTE 1 (citing
`
`Paper 21 (“POR”) at 20, 32–33, 54); however, it is more precise to say that Patent
`
`Owner is relying upon its expert, Mr. Stuart Lipoff, P.E., who cited these Exhibits
`
`when explaining his opinion regarding how a POSITA would understand the
`
`meaning of Limitations 1[c–d]/9[c–d]/17[c–d] (where compiled content is generated
`
`in part from execution of said application and that content is then received at a
`
`wireless device) and Limitations 1[b]/9[b]/17[b] (where the custom configuration
`
`configures a plurality of rendering blocks to render content in a manner customized
`
`to an application). POR 20, 32–33, 54 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 90, 110–13, 143–46 (in
`
`turn, citing Exs. 2023–28)). And Mr. Lipoff explicitly stated in his report that “I
`
`have approached my validity analysis from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the effective priority date of the Patent-at-Issue.” Ex. 2022 ¶41
`
`(emphasis added). Therefore, it is clear that it is Mr. Lipoff’s expert opinion that the
`
`
`1 Where Petitioner did not object to exhibits individually, cf. § 42.64(c) (requiring
`objections in exhibit order, implying addressing exhibits separately), Patent Owner’s
`opposition similarly addresses the exhibits collectively.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`definitions from sources with dates after the effective priority date are still relevant
`
`to what a POSITA understood as of the effective date.
`
`Petitioner seems to be advocating for a rule that any definition from after the
`
`effective priority date are per se irrelevant. See, e.g., MTE 3 (“They cannot be
`
`credible evidence of how a POSITA would have understood those terms . . .”)
`
`(emphasis added). This is not the case. Amphastar Pharms., Inc. v. Aegis
`
`Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2021-01324-43, at 72–73 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2023) (“We agree
`
`with Patent Owner that ‘[n]o bright line rule prohibits the consideration of post-
`
`priority date evidence.’”). That some documents “post-date [the] patent application
`
`does not render them irrelevant or [an expert’s] reliance on them unreasonable.
`
`Those limitations go to the weight the [decision maker] should afford [the expert’s]
`
`testimony rather than to its admissibility.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. CareFusion Corp.,
`
`No. 15-cv-09986, 2021 WL 428822, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2021) (Doc. 330).
`
`Indeed, the PTAB often cites modern dictionaries when construing claim
`
`terms from older patents. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`
`IPR2022-00633-36, at 15 & 8 n.2 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2023) (citing January 19, 2023,
`
`dictionary.com definition regarding a patent “filed before March 16, 2013”);
`
`LinkedIn Corp. v. eBuddy Techs. B.V., IPR2022-00165-40, 12 & 7 n.2 (PTAB
`
`June 30, 2023) (citing June 23, 2022, dictionary.com definition regarding a patent
`
`with priority date of June 21, 2011); Packers Plus Energy Servs. Inc. v. Baker
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`Hughes Oilfield Ops., Inc., IPR2016-01099, at 12 & 8 n.2 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2019)
`
`(citing November 5, 2019, merriamwebster.com definition regarding a patent with
`
`“a filing date prior to March 16, 2013”); Vivint, Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLC,
`
`IPR2022-01365-8, at 13 & 9 n.10 (PTAB Apr. 26, 2023) (citing undated
`
`https://ahdictionary.com screenshot regarding a patent with a filing date prior to
`
`March 16, 2013).
`
`If Petitioner believed the terms had different meanings as of the effective
`
`priority date, then Petitioner was free to question the accuracy and limitations of the
`
`documents with the familiar tools of “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of
`
`contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.” Daubert v.
`
`Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993) (citation omitted) (explaining
`
`the “traditional and appropriate” means of attacking admissible evidence an
`
`opposing party feels is “shaky”); accord Baxter, 2021 WL 428822, at *2.
`
`Petitioner says that the definitions in the Exhibits have “minimal probative
`
`value on the ultimate issues of invalidity,” and only addresses Exhibit 2025,
`
`containing definitions of the word “from,” and even notes “the word ‘from’ . . .
`
`appears in the claim limitation.” MTE 3. First, “minimal probative value” clears
`
`FRE 401’s low hurdle that merely requires “any tendency to make a fact more or
`
`less probable” (emphasis added). Second, given that “[a] claim must be construed
`
`before determining its validity,” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`52 F.3d 967, 997 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the
`
`meaning of “from” in the limitation could not be more important, and evidence as
`
`to its meaning is the opposite of “minimal[ly] probative.” Indeed, what “from” in
`
`the limitation means is a strongly contested and important issue in this case, see, e.g.,
`
`POR 23–25, 31–37; Reply 12–13; Sur-Reply 5, 15, and Petitioner even filed its own
`
`dictionary definition of the term, Ex. 1028.
`
`Petitioner also objects because “[t]he word ‘from’ is sufficiently clear on its
`
`face [so] that the Board did not and does not need extrinsic evidence to understand
`
`its meaning.” MTE 3. That is merely a claim construction argument—to which
`
`Patent Owner disagrees—and the Board will decide who is correct. But Petitioner’s
`
`opinion regarding whether the Board “needs extrinsic evidence” is no basis to
`
`exclude Ex. 1025, or any of the Exhibits, from the Board’s consideration who can,
`
`for example, decide on its own if the meaning of “from” has changed since 2007.
`
`See, e.g., Amphastar, IPR2021-01324-43, at 72–73 (“On this record we do not find
`
`that there is sufficient cause to exclude the challenged exhibits, because any
`
`consideration by the Board of these exhibits has taken into account their alleged
`
`post-priority date status.”).
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Omnibus FRE 403 Objection Is Unsupported, and/or
`Inapplicable, and the Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to
`Exclude under this Basis
`Alternatively, Petitioner argues that, even if relevant, every Exhibit will create
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`“unfair prejudice and potential confusion” that will substantially outweigh the
`
`relevancy. MTE 4 (citing FRE 403).
`
`First, Petitioner does not say what prejudice it is facing or how the Board will
`
`be confused. As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish it
`
`is entitled to the relief it requests, here excluding the Exhibits, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c); 42.1(d). Such a completely unsupported
`
`statement fails to meet Petitioner’s burden.
`
`Second, the PTAB and Federal Circuit have recognized FRE 403’s
`
`“unfair prejudice” relates to juries, and because “portions of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence relating to . . . juries . . . shall not apply” to PTAB proceedings, § 42.62(b),
`
`Petitioner’s objection is not applicable here. See Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp
`
`Computing AS, IPR2019-00765-30, at 4–5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2020) (citing
`
`Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 631 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting “unfair prejudice” is
`
`inapplicable to non-jury trials)) and Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Ecodyne Corp.,
`
`635 F.2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 1981) (same)). Indeed, exclusion of evidence on
`
`grounds of “prejudice” makes little sense because the Court has to see the putatively
`
`prejudicial evidence in order to rule. Id. (citing Wright & Miller, 22A FED. PRAC.
`
`& PROC. EVID. § 5213 (2d ed.)).
`
`Finally, Rule 403 is permissive: “The court may exclude relevant evidence”
`
`(emphasis added). Given that (1) “[i]t is better to have a complete record of the
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`evidence submitted by the parties than to exclude particular pieces of evidence,”
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010-59, at 40
`
`(PTAB Feb. 24, 2014); (2) that this is a non-jury trial; (3) that Petitioner has
`
`enunciated no reason it is prejudiced, or the Board will be confused; and (4) the
`
`evidence is relevant to claim constructions the Board may need to make, the Panel
`
`should decline to discretionarily exclude the Exhibits.
`
`III. Petitioner’s “Weight” Request Is Inappropriate and Petitioner’s
`Argument Should Be Ignored
`Petitioner asks the Board, should the Board not exclude the Exhibits, to
`
`ascribe less weight to the Exhibits. MTE 4. The PTAB is clear that “[a] motion to
`
`exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments
`
`regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.” TPG 79
`
`(Nov. 2019). As such, Petitioner’s request for relief that the Exhibits “should be
`
`ascribed substantially less weight” should be denied and Petitioner’s argument
`
`should be disregarded.
`
`Dated:
`
`July 23, 2024
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
` /Joshua S. Wyde/
`Joshua S. Wyde (Reg. No. 57,698)
`ALAVI & ANAIPAKOS PLLC
`609 Main Street, Suite 3200
`Houston, TX 77027
`Tel: (713) 751–2365
`Fax: (713) 751–2341
`jwyde@aatriallaw.com
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00758
`
`
`
`Patent 8,478,245
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that on the twenty-third day of July, 2024, a
`
`complete and entire copy of the foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE (PAPER 30),” including
`
`exhibits, if any, was served on the date below on the following counsel of record via
`
`email per Petitioner’s consent to electronic service. See Paper 2 at 88.
`
`Petitioner’s distribution list
`Aliza George Carrano
`Indranil Mukerji
`Stephen A. Marshall
`
`
`Dated: July 23, 2024
`
`
`
`Netflix-GTS-WFG@willkie.com
`acarrano@willkie.com
`imukerji@willkie.com
`smarshall@willkie.com
`
`
`
` /Joshua S. Wyde/
`Joshua S. Wyde (Reg. No. 57,698)
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`