throbber
Filed on behalf of: Gold Standard Instruments, LLC
`
`By:
`
` Paper ____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Date filed: Oct. 3, 2016
`
`Joseph A. Hynds, Lead Counsel
`Steven Lieberman, Back-up Counsel, Pro Hac Vice
`C. Nichole Gifford, Back-up Counsel
`R. Elizabeth Brenner-Leifer, Back-up Counsel
`Derek F. Dahlgren, Back-up Counsel, Pro Hac Vice
`Jason M. Nolan, Back-up Counsel
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040 | Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`Emails: jhynds@rothwellfigg.com
`
` slieberman@rothwellfigg.com
` ngifford@rothwellfigg.com
` ebrenner@rothwellfigg.com
` ddahlgren@rothwellfigg.com
` jnolan@rothwellfigg.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`US ENDODONTICS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GOLD STANDARD INSTRUMENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`_______________
`
` PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`

`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 40).
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to the requested
`
`relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Petitioner’s motion to exclude Ex. 2034,
`
`Ex. 2035, Ex. 2036, Ex. 2038, and portions of Ex. 2047 should be denied for the
`
`reasons that follow.
`
`II. Exhibit 2034
`
`Ex. 2034 is a copy of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 14/522,013 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,314,316). Petitioner argues that
`
`Ex. 2034 contains inadmissible hearsay and lacks authentication. (Paper 40 at 1–3.)
`
`Regarding authentication, Ex. 2034 is a record of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (PTO). As such, Ex. 2034 certification is not a requirement
`
`for admissibility. 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(b). Ex. 2034 is admissible in its entirety,
`
`including the documents filed on March 3, 2016 (Applicant’s request for continued
`
`examination, amendments to the claims, and a declaration executed by Dr. Neill H.
`
`Luebke). Ex. 2034 at 372–405. Applicant’s submission refers to an Office action
`
`mailed on September 4, 2015. Id. at 372. The Office action mailed on September 4,
`2
`
`

`
`2015 bears the seal of the PTO. Id. at 302. The Notice of Allowance, mailed by the
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`PTO on March 14, 2016, refers to the documents filed on March 3, 2016. Id. at
`
`410. It also bears the seal of the PTO. Id. at 445. Accordingly, the appearance,
`
`contents, substance, internal patterns, and/or other distinctive characteristics of
`
`Ex. 2034, taken together with all the circumstances, support a finding that it is
`
`what Patent Owner claims it is. As such, Ex. 2034 is also admissible under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a), 901(b)(4), and 902(1)(A).
`
`Petitioner argues that Exhibit A to Dr. Luebke’s declaration is inadmissible
`
`because there is no sworn testimony showing that Exhibit A is a true and correct
`
`copy of a report prepared by Knight Mechanical Testing (KMT). (Paper 40 at 2.)
`
`But testimony is not required. See Fed. R. Evid. 901 (listing testimony as one
`
`example). Rule 901 also states that distinctive characteristics and the like may
`
`satisfy the requirement of authenticating evidence. Exhibit A was signed by Nick
`
`Chadd and Nolan Knight on March 2, 2016. Ex. 2034 at 384. Exhibit A bears KMT
`
`Report No. TR1139-001 and is titled Gold Standard Nitinol Files ISO 3630-1
`
`Section 7.5 Stiffness Testing Final Report. Id. Exhibit A is consecutively paginated
`
`from 1/10 to 10/10. Id. at 384–393. Each page is printed on corporate letterhead,
`
`which contains on the top of the page, the name Knight Mechanical Testing, the
`
`stylized trade logo KMT, and the address, telephone, and fax number. Because
`
`Exhibit A is signed and contains inscription affixed during the normal course of
`3
`
`

`
`business, there is no doubt as to the origin, ownership, and control of the
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`document. And Petitioner has not pointed to any discrepancies or articulated any
`
`reason for questioning whether Exhibit A is what it purports to be. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit A is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(7). See, e.g., Alexander v.
`
`CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 561 (6th Cir. 2009) (job description on a company
`
`letterhead was self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(7) because it contained
`
`a trade inscription indicating the source of origin of the document); Reitz v. Mt.
`
`Juliet, No. 3:08-cv-0728, 2009 WL 5170200, at *5 n.7 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2009)
`
`(stating that letters and memorandum on letterhead are self-authenticating under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 902(7)).
`
`Petitioner also argues that the identification, authenticity, and chain of
`
`custody of the endodontic file samples tested by KMT have not been confirmed.
`
`(Paper 40 at 3.) This argument ignores the record. Dr. Luebke testified that he
`
`obtained nickel titanium files and instructed Bodycote Thermal Processing of
`
`Sturtevant, Wisconsin to heat treat them in a furnace at 300C for 24 hours. See
`
`Ex. 2034 at 382 (Luebke decl. ¶4). After the heat treatment, the files were sent to
`
`KMT for testing according to ISO 3630-1. See id. (Luebke decl. ¶5). Exhibit A
`
`confirms that the file samples tested by KMT were provided by Bodycote Thermal
`
`Processing of Sturtevant, WI. See id. at 387 (Ex. A §3.1). Exhibit A includes photos
`
`of the file samples after testing and reports the angle of permanent deformation for
`4
`
`

`
`each of the tested files. See id. at 390 (test results) and 392 (photo).
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`Regarding hearsay, Petitioner argues that Dr. Luebke’s declaration, including
`
`Exhibit A, is inadmissible because it was not submitted with testimony in this trial.
`
`(Paper 40 at 2.) First, the statements in Dr. Luebke’s declaration were based on his
`
`personal knowledge, and sworn to be true with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements would be punishable under the law. See Ex. 2034 at 383 (¶7). Second,
`
`Exhibit A was signed by Nick Chadd and Nolan Knight in the ordinary course of
`
`business at the time the report was released. See Ex. 2034 at 384–85. Third,
`
`Petitioner cross-examined Dr. Luebke about this declaration. See Ex. 1044.
`
`Although that deposition was for the related district court litigation, Petitioner
`
`never requested Patent Owner to make Dr. Luebke, or any declarants, available for
`
`deposition in this trial. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the statements in
`
`Ex. 2034 are hearsay, they are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 807 because: (1)
`
`there are circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness associated with submitting a
`
`declaration with the PTO; (2) the declaration was offered as evidence of a material
`
`fact; and (3) the declaration is more probative for showing that “Dr. Luebke
`
`submitted information to the Patent Office demonstrating that a heat-treatment at
`
`300°C resulted in a file that satisfies the permanent deformation of the ‘wherein’
`
`clause,” than any other evidence. Accordingly, the interests of justice and the
`
`purposes of the hearsay rule will be best served by denying Petitioner’s motion.
`5
`
`

`
`III. Exhibit 2035
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`Ex. 2035 is a copy of Kowalski Heat Treating Company Certification, dated
`
`January 15, 2016. Petitioner argues that Ex. 2035 contains inadmissible hearsay
`
`and lacks authentication. (Paper 40 at 3–4.)
`
`Regarding authentication, Ex. 2035 is a signed certification attesting to the
`
`heat treatment of certain endodontic files (Part No. PIT042025) in a molten salt
`
`bath at 400°C for 10 minutes. The signed certification was printed on an
`
`“O.C.T.A.®2000 Certification Form” with the name Kowalski Heat Treating
`
`Company and its trade logo on the top of the page. The signed certification
`
`contains the address, telephone, and fax number for Kowalski Heat Treating
`
`Company on the bottom of the page. Because the signed certification contains
`
`inscription affixed during the normal course of business, there is no doubt as to the
`
`origin, ownership, and control of the document. And Petitioner has not pointed to
`
`any discrepancies or articulated any reason for questioning whether Ex. 2035 is
`
`what it purports to be. Thus, Ex. 2035 is a self-authenticating document under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 902(7). See, e.g., Alexander, 576 F.3d at 561; Reitz, 2009 WL 5170200, at
`
`*5 n.7. Additionally, Petitioner is in possession of Substitute Ex. 2051 in IPR2015-
`
`00632—a declaration from David Lorenz attaching Exhibit A (a certified work
`
`order signed by Mr. Lorenz). Said Exhibit A is identical to Ex. 2035. Petitioner
`
`6
`
`

`
`possesses documents that belie its assertion that Ex. 2035 contains an illegible
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`signature from an unidentified individual.
`
`Regarding hearsay, Petitioner argues that no exceptions to the rule against
`
`hearsay are applicable to the statements in Ex. 2035. The certification states: “The
`
`above stated parts were annealed by immersing them in a molten salt bath at (400
`
`C) 752 F +- 5F for 10 minutes and subsequently water quenched.”1 Petitioner
`
`never requested that Patent Owner make the declarant, David Lorenz, available for
`
`deposition. And even assuming arguendo that Mr. Lorenz’s statements are hearsay,
`
`Ex. 2035 is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 807 because: (1) there are
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness associated with submitting documents
`
`with the Board under Rule 42.11; (2) the signed certification was offered as
`
`evidence of a material fact; and (3) the signed certification is more probative for
`
`showing that “Patent Owner replicated the process described in Kuhn and heated
`
`the same file specimens as set forth in Kuhn” than any other evidence.
`
`Accordingly, the interests of justice and the purposes of the hearsay rule will be
`
`best served by denying Petitioner’s motion.
`
`IV. Exhibit 2036
`
`
`1 The remaining sentence, “Process instructions were supplied by Jason Nolan,”
`
`does not detract from the admissibility of the previous statement.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Ex. 2036 is a copy of KMT ProFile Rotary File ISO 3630-1 Section 7.5
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`Stiffness Testing Final Report, dated January 18, 2016. Petitioner argues that
`
`Ex. 2036 contains inadmissible hearsay and lacks authentication. (Paper 40 at 4–5.)
`
`Petitioner argues that Ex. 2036 is inadmissible because there is no sworn
`
`testimony showing that Ex. 2036 is a true and correct copy of a report prepared by
`
`KMT. (Paper 40 at 5.) But, as noted above, testimony is not required. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901 (listing testimony as one example). Rule 901 states that distinctive
`
`characteristics and the like may satisfy the requirement of authenticating evidence.
`
`Ex. 2036 was signed by Nick Chadd and Nolan Knight on January 18, 2016.
`
`Ex. 2036 at 1/12. Ex. 2036 bears KMT Report No. TR1114-001 and is titled
`
`ProFile Rotary File ISO 3630-1 Section 7.5 Stiffness Testing Final Report. Id.
`
`Ex. 2036 is consecutively paginated from 1/12 to 12/12. Id. Each page is printed on
`
`corporate letterhead, which contains on the top of the page, the name Knight
`
`Mechanical Testing, the stylized trade logo KMT, and the address, telephone, and
`
`fax number. Because Ex. 2036 is signed and contains inscription affixed during the
`
`normal course of business, there is no doubt as to the origin, ownership, and
`
`control of the document. And Petitioner has not pointed to any discrepancies or
`
`articulated any reason for questioning whether Ex. 2036 is what it purports to be.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2036 is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(7). See, e.g.,
`
`Alexander, 576 F.3d at 561; Reitz, 2009 WL 5170200, at *5 n.7.
`8
`
`

`
`Petitioner also argues that the identification, authenticity, and chain of
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`custody of the endodontic file samples tested by KMT have not been confirmed.
`
`(Paper 40 at 5.) This argument ignores the record. After the heat treatment, the
`
`Kowalski Heat Treating Company sent the ProFiles to KMT for testing according
`
`to ISO 3630-1. See Ex. 2036 at 4/12 (§3.1). Ex. 2036 includes photos of the file
`
`samples after testing and reports the angle of permanent deformation for each of
`
`the tested files. See id. at 7/12 (test results) and 9–11 (photos). Additionally,
`
`Petitioner is in possession of Substitute Ex. 2052 in IPR2015-00632—a declaration
`
`from Nolan Knight and Exhibit A (a testing report for materials provided by
`
`Kowalski Heat Treating Company). Said Exhibit A is identical to Ex. 2036.
`
`Regarding hearsay, Petitioner argues that no exceptions to the rule against
`
`hearsay are applicable to the statements in Ex. 2036. Petitioner never requested
`
`that Patent Owner make the declarants, Nick Chadd and Nolan Knight, available
`
`for deposition. And even assuming arguendo that their statements are hearsay,
`
`Ex. 2036 is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 807 because: (1) there are
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness associated with submitting documents
`
`with the Board under Rule 42.11; (2) the signed report was offered as evidence of a
`
`material fact; and (3) the signed report is more probative for showing that “Patent
`
`Owner replicated the process described in Kuhn” and that the files “did not exhibit
`
`greater than 10 degrees of permanent deformation as required by the claims of the
`9
`
`

`
`’991 patent,” than any other evidence. Accordingly, the interests of justice and the
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`purposes of the hearsay rule will be best served by denying Petitioner’s motion.
`
`V. Exhibit 2038
`
`Ex. 2038 is a copy of email communications between Dr. Neill H. Luebke
`
`and Bobby Bennett, dated June 27, 2010 and July 6, 2010. Petitioner incorrectly
`
`argues that the email contains hearsay statements from Dr. Luebke and
`
`Mr. Bennett. But Mr. Bennett is a real party in interest in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner is owned in part by Mr. Bennett. Therefore, Mr. Bennett’s statements in
`
`the email are not hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2) because they are offered against a
`
`party opponent. And if they were hearsay, then they should remain in the record
`
`because of the circumstantial indicia of trustworthiness. Mr. Bennett’s statements
`
`in the email were made by a real party in interest, are contemporaneous with the
`
`date of the email, and avoid any of the dangers associated with hearsay, such as
`
`perception, memory, narration, and sincerity.
`
`Further, Petitioner had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Luebke on his
`
`statements in Ex. 2038, but declined to do so. A copy of the same document was
`
`used as an exhibit during Dr. Luebke’s December 9, 2015 deposition in IPR2015-
`
`00632. See IPR2015-00632 Ex. 2044 and Ex. 2046 at 196. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`questioned Dr. Luebke for 35 minutes on re-cross, but chose not to ask any
`
`questions about Ex. 2044. See IPR2015-00632 Ex. 2046 at 237–262. Therefore,
`10
`
`

`
`assuming arguendo that his statements are hearsay, Ex. 2038 is admissible under
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 because: (1) there are circumstantial guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness associated with Petitioner’s opportunity to cross-examine Dr.
`
`Luebke; (2) the email communications were offered as evidence of a material fact;
`
`and (3) the email communications are more probative for showing that “Mr.
`
`Bennett engaged in licensing discussions with Luebke and sent Luebke a proposal
`
`for licensing his invention,” than any other evidence. The interests of justice and
`
`the purposes of the hearsay rule will be best served by denying Petitioner’s motion.
`
`VI. Exhibit 2047
`
`Exhibit 2047 is the deposition transcript of Dr. A. Jon Goldberg. Petitioner
`
`argues that a substantial portion of the transcript should be excluded as falling
`
`outside the scope of Dr. Goldberg’s supplemental declaration. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner moves to exclude 16:17–19:5; 27:21–31:22; 33:19–41:8; 41:15–59:10;
`
`70:3–106:2; and 127:17–186:10. Petitioner does not argue that those portions of
`
`the transcript are not relevant to one or more issues in this trial. And Petitioner
`
`does not argue that those portions of the transcript are not relevant to
`
`Dr. Goldberg’s direct testimony. Petitioner therefore concedes that the testimony in
`
`those portions of the transcript is relevant to the issues of this trial.
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that any of the questions and
`
`answers in 16:17–19:5; 27:21–31:22; 33:19–41:8; 41:15–59:10; 70:3–106:2; and
`11
`
`

`
`127:17–186:10 are beyond the scope of Dr. Goldberg’s direct testimony. Petitioner
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`neither describes the substance of the testimony in 16:17–19:5; 27:21–31:22;
`
`33:19–41:8; 41:15–59:10; 70:3–106:2, nor explains why it is beyond the scope of
`
`Dr. Goldberg’s direct testimony. Rule 42.64(c) requires a motion to “explain the
`
`objections.” Here, Petitioner’s bare assertion that such testimony is beyond the
`
`scope of Dr. Goldberg’s direct testimony is a conclusion, not an explanation.
`
`Assuming arguendo that Petitioner will explain the basis for its objection in
`
`its Reply to this Opposition, and that the Board will consider such an untimely
`
`explanation, the exclusion of the testimony would still be an improper remedy.
`
`Petitioner does not move to exclude other portions of the transcript, such as: 8:23–
`
`9:13, where Dr. Goldberg testified to having been paid over $225,000 by counsel
`
`for Petitioner; 12:9–16:16, where Dr. Goldberg testified as to whether the ISO
`
`3630-1 bend testing required in the claims of the ’991 patent is “unusual,”
`
`“ordinary,” or “routine”; 23:9–27:20, where Dr. Goldberg testified that Petitioner’s
`
`supplemental testing supports his opinions in his original declaration (Ex. 1002),
`
`and that he is familiar with articles discussing the heat treatment of nickel titanium
`
`alloys; or 69:6–70:2, where Dr. Goldberg testified that he was unaware of any heat
`
`treatments done by Petitioner at 400°C, 500°C, 600°C, 700°C, or 800°C. As such,
`
`questions addressing Dr. Goldberg’s bias and credibility, and questions addressing
`
`the basis for his opinion that the claimed invention is allegedly not enabled, are not
`12
`
`

`
`outside the scope of Dr. Goldberg’s testimony. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Smartflash,
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`LLC, Case No. CBM2014-00102, slip op. at 41 (Paper 52 Sept. 25, 2015)
`
`(discussing the admissibility of deposition testimony in Ex. 1031). The testimony
`
`in 16:17–19:5; 27:21–31:22; 33:19–41:8; 41:15–59:10; 70:3–106:2; and 127:17–
`
`186:10 cannot be excluded merely because the questions did not mention the data
`
`in Ex. 1041. Id. The interests of justice will be best served by denying Petitioner’s
`
`motion.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Board should deny Petitioner’s motion to
`
`exclude Ex. 2034, Ex. 2035, Ex. 2036, Ex. 2038, and portions of Ex. 2047.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 3, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Jason M. Nolan /
`
`Jason M. Nolan, Reg. No. 72427
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Gold Standard Instruments, LLC
`
`13
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case PGR2015-00019
`Patent 8,876,991 B2
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of October 2016, a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served, via electronic mail upon the following
`
`counsel for Petitioner US Endodontics, LLC:
`
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, Esq.
`Abhishek Bapna, Esq.
`Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-6710
`Phone: 212-336-2630
`Facsimile: 212-336-1270
`Emails: jginsberg@pbwt.com
`abapna@pbwt.com
`
`
`
`
`/ Erik van Leeuwen /
`Erik van Leeuwen
`Litigation Operations Coordinator
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`1

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket