IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Pursuant to 37.C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”),
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`as applied by the Board, Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Display Co., Ltd., and Sony Corporation (“Petitioners”) submit the following
`
`objections to evidence served by Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`(“Surpass”) with Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC’s Response Under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (“Patent Owner’s Response”). No evidentiary exhibits bearing
`
`exhibit numbers 2017-2022 were served with the Patent Owner’s Response, and no
`
`declarations of fact witnesses or expert witnesses were served with the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response. These objections are timely filed within five (5) business days
`
`from the service date of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Petitioners reserve the right to present further objections to these or
`
`additional Exhibits submitted by Surpass, as allowed by the applicable rules or
`
`other authority.
`
`Exhibit 2004 – October 28, 2015 Deposition of Thomas Credelle in
`IPR2015-00863 Case
`
`The Credelle deposition testimony from Exhibit 2004 cited in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response is inadmissible for at least the following reasons, including
`
`under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”):
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2004 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and FRE 802. Mr. Credelle did not testify on direct (through a declaration) at the
`
`current trial, i.e., IPR2015-00887, but instead testified at an unrelated trial,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`IPR2015-00863, and was cross-examined at a deposition in that unrelated trial.
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`The cited testimony from pages 31:20-32:6 of Exhibit 2004 is an out-of-court
`
`statement. None of the hearsay exceptions of FRE 803 or 804 apply to the cited
`
`testimony. Furthermore, Petitioners object to the cited Credelle deposition
`
`testimony as lacking probative value in connection with the issues raised in this
`
`trial, and is thus inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`Petitioners further object to the cited Credelle testimony as lacking personal
`
`knowledge in connection with the particular testimony cited, and thus is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 602. The cited testimony is not based on U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,420,550 or any of the references cited in the March 16, 2015 Petition (Paper No.
`
`1).
`
`Exhibit 2005 – October 30, 2015 Deposition of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D.
`in IPR2015-00887 Case
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2005 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to the use of any deposition testimony of Dr. Liu to the
`
`extent objected to on the record by counsel during the deposition for the reasons
`
`stated therein. Petitioners further object specifically to Exhibit A to the deposition
`
`of Dr. Liu under FRE 402 and 403 as irrelevant and misleading. The exhibit is
`
`irrelevant in light of Dr. Liu’s testimony at pages 8:5-13:17 of Exhibit 2005
`
`establishing that the symbol appearing on the exhibit is not a commonly used
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`symbol with a commonly understood meaning and therefore its meaning depends
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`on the context in which it is used. Patent Owner has not established its meaning in
`
`the context of the ‘550 Patent. The exhibit is also misleading because the label
`
`appearing on the exhibit, “Resistor Circuit Symbol,” was affixed on the drawing
`
`before a circle was drawn, and therefore does not identify the symbol appearing on
`
`the exhibit.
`
`Exhibit 2006 – November 11, 2015 Deposition of Michael J. Marentic in
`IPR2015-00913 Case
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2006 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2006 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and FRE 802. Mr. Marentic did not testify on direct (through a declaration) at the
`
`current trial, i.e., IPR2015-00887, but instead testified at a different trial, IPR2015-
`
`00913, and was cross-examined at a deposition in that different trial. Petitioners in
`
`the instant trial are not parties in IPR2015-0913, were not present at the deposition
`
`of Mr. Marentic, and did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Marentic.
`
`The cited Marentic testimony is an out-of-court statement. None of the hearsay
`
`exceptions of FRE 803 or 804 apply to the cited testimony. Furthermore,
`
`Petitioners object to the cited Marentic deposition testimony as lacking probative
`
`value in connection with the issues raised in this trial, and is thus inadmissible
`
`under FRE 403.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Exhibit 2007 – November 13, 2015 Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. in
`IPR2015-00885 Case
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2007 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2007 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and FRE 802. Dr. Zech did not testify on direct (through a declaration) at the
`
`current trial, i.e., IPR2015-00887, but instead testified at an unrelated trial,
`
`IPR2015-00885, and was cross-examined at a deposition in that unrelated trial.
`
`Petitioners in the instant trial are not parties in IPR2015-0885, were not present at
`
`the deposition of Dr. Zech, and did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr.
`
`Zech. The cited Zech testimony is an out-of-court statement. None of the hearsay
`
`exceptions of FRE 803 or 804 apply to the cited testimony. Furthermore,
`
`Petitioners object to the cited Zech deposition testimony as lacking probative value
`
`in connection with the issues raised in this trial, and is thus inadmissible under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2008 – U.S. Patent No. 3,528,350 to Schmitt
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2008 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2008 being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`Exhibit 2008 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2008 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2009 is directed to a photoresistor circuit
`
`for measuring light, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal
`
`displays.
`
`Exhibit 2009 – U.S. Patent No. 4,467,325 to Lustig
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2009 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2009 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2009 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2009 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2009 is directed to a photoresistors used in
`
`an addressing matrix, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid
`
`crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2010 – U.S. Patent No. 4,771,278 to Pooley
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2010 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2010 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2010 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2010 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2010 is directed to a filament lamp
`
`display, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2011 – U.S. Patent No. RE34,135 to Madsen et al.
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2011 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2011 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2011 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2011 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2011 is directed to a filament lamp
`
`display, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2012 – U.S. Patent No. 4,894,645 to Odlen
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2012 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2012 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2012 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2012 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2012 is directed to a filament lamp
`
`display, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2013 – Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2015-00022
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2013 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2013 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2013 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2013 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. The text cited from Exhibit 2013 is attorney
`
`argument regarding application of the holdings of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Exhibit 2014 – U.S. Patent No. 6,961,167 to Prins et al.
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2014 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2014 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2014 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2014 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2014 is directed to electrophoretic devices,
`
`and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2015 – U.S. Patent No. 5,047,694 to Nuckolls et al.
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2015 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2015 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2015 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2015 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2015 is directed to restarting circuits for
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`high pressure sodium lamps, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2016 – U.S. Patent No. 5,962,988 to Nuckolls et al.
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2016 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2016 as being inadmissible under FRE 402 as
`
`lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert
`
`witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to
`
`Exhibit 2016 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2016 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2015 is directed to ballast and diming
`
`circuits for gas discharge lamps, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix
`
`liquid crystal displays.
`
`Exhibit 2023 – Modern Dictionary of Electronics
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2023 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2023 as lacking authentication, and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901. Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2023 as an
`
`incomplete duplicate of the underlying electronics dictionary, and is thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 1003.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2023 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`and FRE 802, and further object to Exhibit 2023 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`402 as lacking relevancy. Patent Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or
`
`an expert witness declaration supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with
`
`respect to Exhibit 2023 or to otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2023 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. The provided pages of Exhibit 2024 do not show
`
`any representative symbols for a liquid crystal pixel as used in Janssen ’708
`
`(Exhibit 1004).
`
`Exhibit 2024 – Website download entitled “Chapter 3. Introduction to
`Electronics”
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit 2024 is inadmissible for at least
`
`the following reasons, including under the FRE:
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2024 as lacking authentication, and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2024 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and FRE 802, and further object to Exhibit 2024 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`402 as lacking relevancy. Petitioners further object to the relevancy based on the
`
`apparent date of the exhibit, which appears to be no earlier than 2014. Patent
`
`Owner did not file a fact witness declaration or an expert witness declaration
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`December 2, 2015
`
`supporting Patent Owner’s attorney arguments with respect to Exhibit 2024 or to
`
`otherwise establish its relevancy in this trial.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2024 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Exhibit 2024 is directed to a discussion of Ohm’s
`
`Law, and lacks any disclosure regarding active matrix liquid crystal displays.
`
`Date: December 2, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` Jay I. /ander /
`Registration No.: 32,678
`Andrea G. Reister
`
`Registration No.: 36,253
`Gregory S. Discher
`Registration No.: 42,488
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`
`Michelle Carniaux
`
`Registration No.: 36,098
`John Flock
`
`Registration No.: 39,670
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`(212) 425-7200
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of December,
`
`2015, the foregoing Petitioners’ Response to Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served via electronic mail by
`
`agreement of the parties upon the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Donald L. Jackson
`
`Michael R. Casey
`whelge@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P.
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Date: December 2 2015
`
`
`
`l\
`
`%
`
`V,
`Jayzy
`
`,
`M
`ander
`
`Regstration No.: 32,678
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
