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—O0887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)
`
`DC: 5925459-4
`
`
`
`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—O0887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)
`
`DC: 5925459-4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015~0O887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`December 23, 2015
`
`Pursuant to 37.C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”),
`
`as applied by the Board, Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Display Co., Ltd., and Sony Corporation (“Petitioners”) submit
`
`the following
`
`objections to supplemental evidence served by Patent Owner Surpass Tech
`
`Innovation LLC (“Surpass”) with Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC’s
`
`Notice of Supplemental Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), dated December
`
`16, 2015. These objections are timely filed within five (5) business days from the
`
`service date of Patent Owner’s Notice of Supplemental Evidence.
`
`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 2025 — December 15, 2015 Declaration of William K. Bohannon
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2025, the Declaration of William K. Bohannon
`
`dated December 15, 2015, as improper supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(2). Supplemental evidence must be relevant to an objection made by an
`
`opposing party under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Exhibit 2025 consists of three
`
`pages of testimony from a purported expert witness regarding a previously
`
`submitted exhibit.
`
`Patent Owner draws no connection between any of the
`
`purported expert testimony, and any of the objections to admissibility made by
`
`Petitioners to the evidence submitted with Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`December 23, 2015
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2025 under FRE 702, 703, and 402.
`
`Surpass has not established that Mr. Bohannon is an expert in the technical field
`
`relevant to U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 (“the ’550 patent”), or has credentials that at
`
`least satisfy the proposed standard of a person of ordinary skill in the art (of the
`
`’550 patent), i.e., at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or
`
`related field), at least one (1) year of education or training in semiconductor
`
`devices and integrated circuit design, and at least two (2) years of experience with
`
`active-matrix liquid crystal display (“AMLCD”) technology, including work on a
`
`project that included the eventual fabrication and testing of an AMLCD. Because
`
`Surpass has not established that Mr. Bohannon is qualified as an expert by
`
`knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, under FRE 702 and 703, his
`
`testimony will not help a trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
`
`fact in issue. Accordingly,
`
`the opinions expressed by Mr. Bohannon are not
`
`relevant. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners object to Exhibit 2025 under FRE
`
`402 as lacking relevancy.
`
`Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration is further irrelevant because Patent Owner
`
`never offered any “opinion” evidence as to Exhibit 2023 in the Patent Owner
`
`Response filed November 24, 2015. Because that response presented no opinion
`
`regarding Exhibit 2023. (but only attorney argument), Mr. Bohannon’s currently
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015—00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`December 23, 2015
`
`proffered opinion——that an expert would rely on Exhibit 2023 to form an
`
`opinion—-—cannot be relevant to this proceeding.
`
`Petitioners further object to Exhibit 2025 as being inadmissible under FRE
`
`403 as lacking probative value. Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration attempts to show that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have relied upon Exhibit 2023 when
`
`forming an opinion regarding schematic symbols. See Ex. 2025, ‘lHI9—10. Mr.
`
`Bohannon’s Declaration fails to address, however, the FRE 403, 801, 802, 901,
`
`and 1003 objections set forth in Petitioners’ Objections To Patent Owner’s
`
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (Paper No. 17) regarding Exhibit 2023.
`
`Notably, Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration does not address the fact that the provided
`
`pages of Exhibit 2023 do not show any representative symbols for a liquid crystal
`
`pixel as used in Janssen ’708 (Exhibit 1004).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`December 23, 2015
`
`Date: December 23, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` s‘e/kain/Ier
`
`ation No.: 32,678
`Regi
`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.2 39,670
`Walter Hanley
`Registration No.: 28,720
`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 23rd 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 23 2015
`Jag/y 1.,
`R is ration No.: 32,678
`
`
`
`DC: 5925459-4
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
