throbber
DOCKET NO.: 2003195-00123US1 and US2
`Filed By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018411
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2017-01842 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude admissible evidence from the Board’s
`
`I.
`
`
`
`consideration to create an incomplete record and to avoid the merits. The Board
`
`can review the full record and appropriately weight the evidence and should deny
`
`Patent Owner’s motion.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues Rashed (Ex. 1026) – a reference cited for illustrative
`
`purposes in Dr. Shanfield’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1027) – and related testimony
`
`is irrelevant because Rashed is not prior art. Patent Owner mischaracterizes the
`
`manner in which Dr. Shanfield discusses Rashed. Dr. Shanfield does not rely on
`
`Rashed as prior art. Rather, Dr. Shanfield testifies based on his experience and
`
`expertise about the understanding of the term “active region” by those of skill in
`
`the art at the time of the ’501 patent and uses a figure from Rashed as a
`
`demonstrative example to illustrate his testimony. Patent Owner offers no
`
`response on the merits, despite having multiple opportunities, and instead seeks to
`
`exclude what is cannot dispute. Rashed is just one example Dr. Shanfield
`
`discusses. He also includes U.S. 5,389,810 to Agata (Ex. 1025), issued in 1995,
`
`which also shows multiple transistors formed in an active region.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also moves to exclude portions of Dr. Shanfield’s testimony
`
`during the re-direct and re-cross related to undisputed issues because Dr. Shanfield
`
`was allegedly coached. He was not. Dr. Shanfield gave consistent technical
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`testimony throughout the deposition. After a series of misleading questions on
`
`cross, Petitioner’s counsel conducted a routine re-direct. When Dr. Shanfield
`
`offered testimony on re-cross based on a misstatement of the law, Petitioner’s
`
`counsel represented to Dr. Shanfield what the law was, and Dr. Shanfield promptly
`
`confirmed his original technical testimony, which he had offered before any
`
`alleged coaching.
`
`Even Patent Owner appears to agree the Board should review the full record.
`
`Patent Owner’s motion for observations asks the Board to consider the exact same
`
`testimony it seeks to exclude in this motion. This further highlights the improper
`
`nature of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude. Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“In the event that cross-examination
`
`occurs after a party has filed its last substantive paper on an issue, such cross-
`
`examination may result in testimony that should be called to the Board’s attention,
`
`but the party does not believe a motion to exclude the testimony is warranted.”)
`
`The Board should review and weigh the evidence with the benefit of the full
`
`record. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`II. The Rashed reference and Dr. Shanfield’s Related Testimony are
`Relevant and Admissible
`
`A. Rashed (Ex. 1026) is admissible to illustrate Dr. Shanfield’s
`testimony
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Rashed (Ex. 1026), arguing it is not relevant
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`because it is not prior art. Mot., 1-5. Patent Owner erroneously presupposes a
`
`requirement that a document be prior art to be admissible. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument should be rejected because Rashed (Ex. 1026) is at least admissible as a
`
`demonstrative example to illustrate Dr. Shanfield’s testimony regarding how a
`
`POSITA would have understood the term “active region.”
`
`
`
`It is well established that “[t]he mere fact that the documents are not prior art
`
`does not merit their exclusion.” See Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publishing,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper No. 90 at 52 (PTAB June 2, 2014); Thomas & Betts
`
`Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d 1572, 1580-81 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`
`
`Dr. Shanfield’s discussion of Rashed (Ex. 1026) demonstrates its relevance
`
`and persuasiveness. In response to Patent Owner’s attempt to limit the claimed
`
`“active region” to “a region in which a single transistor is formed” (POR at 74),
`
`Dr. Shanfield explains that “more than one transistor can exist in an active region.”
`
`Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶17. As part of this discussion, Dr. Shanfield
`
`explains that “Isolation regions are designed to isolate one active region from
`
`another active region, not each transistor from every other transistor.” Ex. 1027
`
`[Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶18. Dr. Shanfield illustrates this testimony with a figure
`
`from Rashed (Ex. 1026). Id. Dr. Shanfield explains: “For example, when
`
`observing a plan view laying out a configuration of semiconductor devices, it
`
`becomes evident that an active region can include more than one transistor. U.S.
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Patent No. 8,618,607 to Rashed et al. (“Rashed”) illustrates such a plan view ….”
`
`Id. Thus, Dr. Shanfield does not testify that Rashed (Ex. 1026) is itself prior art.
`
`Rather, Dr. Shanfield testifies how a POSITA would have understood the term
`
`active region and Rashed (Ex. 1026) is relevant to help illustrate this testimony.
`
`Rashed (Ex. 1026) is just one example Dr. Shanfield discusses in connection
`
`with showing that “more than one transistor can exist in an active region.” Ex.
`
`1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶17. Dr. Shanfield also discusses U.S. 5,389,810 to
`
`Agata (Ex. 1025), issued in 1995, which similarly shows multiple transistors
`
`formed in an active region. Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶17.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s motion selectively quotes from and mischaracterizes the
`
`Reply and Dr. Shanfield’s Reply Declaration. Mot., 1, 3. Contrary to Patent
`
`Owner’s assertions, Dr. Shanfield does not “mistakenly idenitf[y] Rashed as prior
`
`art to the ’501 patent.” Id. Rather, as explained above, Dr. Shanfield uses Rashed
`
`as a demonstrative example to illustrate his testimony about how the term active
`
`region was understood. Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶17-18. Patent Owner
`
`also argues, again incorrectly, that this testimony was offered in support of a new
`
`claim construction argument. It was not. As noted above, this testimony responds
`
`to Patent Owner’s attempt to limit the claimed “active region” to having a “single
`
`transistor.” POR, 74; Reply, 12-13; see also Petitioner’s Response Pursuant to
`
`July 20, 2018 Order (Paper 29), item number 4.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to provide any evidence or
`
`
`
`explanation” establishing that Rashed’s teachings are relevant to the ’501 patent.
`
`Mot., 4. To the contrary, Dr. Shanfield’s testimony, based on his more than 30
`
`years of experience, establishes that Rashed is illustrative of how the term “active
`
`region” was understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in the 2003
`
`timeframe of the ’501 patent. Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶18; Ex. 1002
`
`[Shanfield Decl.], ¶¶ 2-12. Tellingly, neither Patent Owner nor Patent Owner’s
`
`expert has ever disputed Rashed’s disclosure is illustrative of the how a POSITA
`
`would have understood the term active region, despite having the opportunity to do
`
`so in its Sur-Reply, Sur-Reply Declaration, and Observations.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Rashed (Ex. 1026) is unduly prejudicial but
`
`identifies no prejudice it would allegedly suffer. Mot., 5. This argument should be
`
`rejected because Rashed (Ex. 1026) is relevant for the reasons above and because
`
`Patent Owner has suffered no prejudice, particularly because they have had
`
`multiple opportunities to address the reference in subsequent briefing. As the
`
`Board has noted in numerous cases, “the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with
`
`administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate
`
`weight to the evidence presented in this trial, without resorting to formal exclusion
`
`that might later be held reversible error.” See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.
`
`Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 70 (PTAB Jan.
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`23, 2014); Gnosis S.P.A., et al. v. S. Alabama Medical Science Foundation,
`
`IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion as to Rashed (Ex. 1026) should be
`
`denied.
`
`B. Dr. Shanfield’s Testimony Regarding the Understanding of
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art is Admissible Based on Dr.
`Shanfield’s Knowledge and Expertise
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude paragraphs 18 and 29 of Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1027) because they discuss Rashed (Ex. 1026). Mot., 1-5.
`
`This argument should be rejected because Dr. Shanfield’s opinion of how the term
`
`“active region” would have been understood is based on his decades of experience
`
`and expertise and is admissible separate and apart from Rashed. As explained
`
`above, Dr. Shanfield does not rely on Rashed (Ex. 1026) as prior art, but rather,
`
`uses it as a demonstrative example to illustrate how a POSITA would have
`
`understood the term active region. Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶18, 29.
`
`Therefore, paragraphs 18 and 29 of Dr. Shanfield’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1027)
`
`are admissible.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s motion should also be rejected because it is overly broad.
`
`Patent Owner appears to seek to exclude paragraph 18 and 29 in their entirety, not
`
`just the portions that discuss Rashed. For example, paragraph 29, which focuses
`
`on the disclosure in primary reference Igarashi (Ex. 1004), contains merely a one
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`sentence cross-reference to the early discussion of Rashed and other evidence. Ex.
`
`1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶ 29. Moreover, Patent Owner’s motion never
`
`objected to paragraph 29 based on its cross-reference to Rashed. Patent Owner’s
`
`July 14, 2018 Objections (Paper 23), 3. Similarly, in paragraph 18, Dr. Shanfield
`
`first explains how active regions were understood before discussing Rashed to help
`
`illustrate this testimony. Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion as to paragraphs 18 and 29 of Dr.
`
`Shanfield’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1027) should be denied.
`
`III. Dr. Shanfield’s Deposition Testimony is Proper and Admissible
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Shanfield’s deposition
`
`transcript at Ex. 2026 at 144:1-12, 145:1-147:8, 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4.
`
`Patent Owner alleges wrongly that Dr. Shanfield was coached and seeks to exclude
`
`his re-direct testimony and his testimony during its own re-cross. Patent Owner’s
`
`motion should be rejected because it is premised on a mischaracterization of the
`
`record. While Petitioner believes the record speaks for itself and the Board can
`
`appropriately weigh the evidence, Petitioner nonetheless responds here to address
`
`Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the deposition.
`
`
`
`Dr. Shanfield offered consistent technical testimony throughout the
`
`deposition. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6; id. 52:21-53:6.
`
`To provide a clear record for the Board, Petitioner asked Dr. Shanfield routine re-
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`direct questions to clarify his responses to unclear questioning during cross. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 143:10-21 (“Q. Do you also recall discussing
`
`embodiments in the specification of the ’501 patent that includes stress films? A.
`
`Yes, I do. Q. Could you please look at Claim 1 of the ’501 patent. A. Yes. Q.
`
`Does Claim 1 recite any stress limitations? A. No.”) On re-cross, after a long day
`
`of deposition, Dr. Shanfield confused how the requirements of dependent claims
`
`relate to independent claims and offered testimony that was clearly based on that
`
`misunderstanding. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 159:5-160:23. To provide a
`
`clear record, counsel for Petitioner provided a representation to Dr. Shanfield on
`
`the record regarding how as a legal matter dependent claims relate to independent
`
`claims, so that Dr. Shanfield could provide his technical testimony based on that
`
`legal understanding. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 167:14-18. Dr. Shanfield
`
`then confirmed his initial testimony during cross – before any alleged coaching –
`
`was correct. On re-cross, Counsel for Patent Owner tried desperately to get Dr.
`
`Shanfield to admit he had changed his technical testimony, knowing full well that
`
`he had not. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 174:12-23; see also id. 175:2-15.
`
`Having failed to create a misleading record during the deposition, Patent Owner
`
`now seeks to exclude Dr. Shanfield’s confirmation that his initial testimony during
`
`cross (before any alleged coaching) was correct.
`
`
`
`The Board should reject Patent Owner’s attempt to create an incomplete and
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`misleading record. Even Patent Owner appears to agree this testimony is
`
`admissible. For purposes of its Observations on Cross, it asks the Board to
`
`consider the exact same testimony it seeks to exclude in this motion. Compare
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross (Paper 34), Observation #15 (asking the
`
`Board to consider testimony at 144:1-12, 145:1-147:8), Observation #16 (asking
`
`the Board to consider testimony at 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4) with Mot.
`
`(seeking to exclude the exact same testimony). This further illustrates why the
`
`Board should consider the full record. While Petitioner does not rely on the
`
`testimony Patent Owner seeks to exclude for its affirmative case, this testimony
`
`illustrates how the Patent Owner’s seeks to mischaracterize the record and should
`
`be considered by the Board.
`
`A. Dr. Shanfield’s consistent Testimony During Cross-Examination
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Shanfield testified during cross-examination
`
`
`
`that claim 1 requires stress. To the contrary, Dr. Shanfield consistently testified –
`
`before any alleged coaching – that claim 1 does not require stress. Ex. 2026
`
`[Shanfield Reply Tr.], 51:22-52:2 (“Q. Does that language require that the silicon
`
`nitride film apply stress? A. No. The claim language doesn’t require stress.”); id.,
`
`30:4-6; id. 52:21-53:6. This testimony is consistent with Dr. Shanfield’s testimony
`
`in his initial declaration that the challenged claims do not require stress, where he
`
`explains that none of the challenged claims recite stress limitations and that the
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`stress limitations appear in only the unchallenged dependent claims. Ex. 1002
`
`[Shanfield Decl.], ¶46 n. 3.2 Patent Owner never disputed this and confirms in its
`
`Motion to Exclude that it agrees the challenged claims do not require stress. Mot.,
`
`8 (“To be clear, Patent Owner does not [assert] … claim 1 requires that the silicon
`
`nitride film induce stress.”); Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross (Paper 34),
`
`Observation #15 (same).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner ignores this testimony entirely. Instead, Patent Owner cites a
`
`series of questions it asked Dr. Shanfield about an embodiment in the specification.
`
`Mot., 7, citing Ex. [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 56:17-58:2. The immediately preceding
`
`testimony shows Dr. Shanfield is discussing an exemplary embodiment, not what
`
`is required by the claims. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 56:4-16 (“Q. So in the
`
`context of the '501 patent, can a silicon nitride film, which is called out in the last
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Dr. Shanfield has testified consistently that his own opinions are reflected in his
`
`declarations and that he spent at least on the order of 100 hours on his initial
`
`declarations alone. Ex. 2009, 9:10-16, 10:2-8, 11:6-23. Any similarities between
`
`Dr. Shanfield’s declaration in this proceeding and the Petition is simply due to the
`
`Petition adopting and presenting his analysis. Patent Owner’s suggestions to the
`
`contrary are without merit.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`limitation of Claim 1, be made out of multiple layers if those layers deliver only
`
`negligible stress? A. There's nothing in the claim language that prohibits it. The
`
`context of the '501 patent though is referring to silicon nitride that will create a
`
`stress field in the substrate as a whole. So in the literal sense, the claim language
`
`doesn't prohibit the theoretical zero stress film. But what's being referred to is a
`
`stress-inducing film.”).
`
`
`
`Thus, Dr. Shanfield’s consistently testified before any alleged coaching that
`
`the claims do not require stress, as he had testified in his initial declaration and as
`
`the parties agree.
`
`B.
`Petitioner’s Routine Re-Direct Did Not Coach Dr. Shanfield
`Although Dr. Shanfield testified consistently that the claims do not require
`
`
`
`stress, Petitioner believed – rightly – that Patent Owner might try to use the
`
`testimony it obtained at 56:17-58:2, based on unclear questions, to imply that Dr.
`
`Shanfield otherwise. To provide a clear record, Petitioner asked Dr. Shanfield a
`
`series of open-ended questions to confirm which claims require stress (three
`
`unchallenged dependent claims) and which claims do not (the challenged claims).
`
`Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 143:10-144:7. Dr. Shanfield offered the same
`
`testimony he offered in his initial declaration, namely, that the challenged claims to
`
`not require stress. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 144:9-12.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s re-direct did not coach or otherwise suggest the answer Dr.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Shanfield should give. In fact, to avoid even a hint of coaching, Petitioner’s
`
`counsel walked through the claims themselves with Dr. Shanfield, rather than
`
`pointing him to his testimony in his initial declaration.
`
`
`
`Petitioner believes the Board can properly weigh the evidence and evaluate
`
`the full record. Patent Owner’s efforts to exclude the re-direct would create a less
`
`clear record and should be rejected.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Counsel Recognized It Had Obtained Testimony
`Based on a Misstatement of the Law and Sought to Capitalize on
`It
`Patent Owner argues that during re-cross Dr. Shanfield returned to his
`
`
`
`opinion on cross and that this opinion was that the claims require stress. Mot., 12.
`
`This argument is not supported by the record. As discussed above, Dr. Shanfield
`
`repeatedly confirmed on cross – before any alleged coaching – that the claims do
`
`not require any stress. Supra at III.A-B, citing Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.],
`
`51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6, 52:21-53:6, 143:10-144:12.
`
`
`
`Rather, what occurred during re-cross is that after a long deposition, Dr.
`
`Shanfield, a technical expert, made a misstatement of law. Ex. 2026 [Shanfield
`
`Reply Tr.], 159:21-160:4. At the start of re-cross, Dr. Shanfield testified – as he
`
`had throughout the deposition – that the challenged claims do not require stress:
`
`“Q. So there's no requirement in Claim 1 of the ’501 patent that the silicon nitride
`
`film induce stress; is that correct? A. Claim language doesn't prohibit a zero
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`stress film. That's correct.” Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 159:5-9. Not
`
`satisfied, Patent Owner’s counsel repeatedly tried to get Dr. Shanfield to change
`
`his testimony by telling him “That’s not my question,” “This isn't the question,”
`
`and telling him to answer “without looking at the claim language.” Id., 159:10-18.
`
`At this point, Dr. Shanfield became confused by Patent Owner’s counsel’s
`
`questioning and mixed up how the requirements of dependent claims relate to
`
`independent claims. Id., 159:21-160:4. Patent Owner’s counsel seized upon the
`
`opportunity to take advantage of this misunderstanding, which Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel even acknowledged. Id., 160:5 (“Perhaps you’re confused.”) Thereafter,
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel did everything possible to prevent Dr. Shanfield from
`
`clarifying his testimony, going as far as attempting to stop the deposition with a
`
`question pending. Id., 168:5-11.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Properly Clarified the Law for Dr. Shanfield to Create
`a Clear Record of Dr. Shanfield’s Technical Testimony
`Given Dr. Shanfield’s apparent testimony based on a legal
`
`
`
`misunderstanding, Petitioner’s counsel clarified the law for Dr. Shenfield by
`
`providing a simple, non-leading legal representation: “Q. I'm going to represent to
`
`you that as a legal matter, a dependent claim recites additional limitations that are
`
`not present in the independent claim from which it depends. Do you have that
`
`understanding in mind?” Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 167:14-18. Petitioner’s
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`counsel then gave Dr. Shanfield an opportunity to clarify his testimony, if he
`
`desired, and Dr. Shanfield confirmed that as a technical matter, claim 1 does not
`
`require stress, just as he had testified before any alleged coaching: “Q. And with
`
`the understanding that we discussed earlier, is there anything you would like to
`
`clarify with your testimony regarding whether Claim 1 requires silicon nitride film
`
`to induce stress? Yes. Now that I understand – … [interruption by Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel] Yes. I do want to clarify. Now that I understand the legal issue, Claim 1
`
`does not require that -- it does not have any language in it that requires the film to
`
`have stress, as I said before. And what that means legally is that it's not required in
`
`meeting the limitations of Claim 1.” Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 171:16-
`
`172:14.
`
`
`
`On Patent Owner’s second re-cross (which Patent Owner also seeks to
`
`exclude), Dr. Shanfield confirmed repeatedly that he was simply “mistaken about
`
`the legal implications” when answering Patent Owner’s questions on re-cross. Ex.
`
`2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.], 174:12-23; see also id. 175:2-15, 176:4-24, 177:11-19.
`
`
`
`Having failed to prevent Dr. Shanfield from clarifying his testimony, Patent
`
`Owner now seeks to selectively exclude it to create an incomplete and misleading
`
`transcript. Petitioner believes the record speaks for itself and that the Board can
`
`appropriately weigh the full record. Patent Owner’s motion as to selected portions
`
`of Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.] should be denied.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, each of Ex. 1026 [Rashed], paragraphs 18 and 29
`
`
`
`of Ex. 1027 [Shanfield Reply Decl.], and Ex. 2026 [Shanfield Reply Tr.] at 144:1-
`
`12, 145:1-147:8, 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-178:4 is admissible evidence, and
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael Smith/________________
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that, on August 22, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
` I
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record as listed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Registration No. 50,474
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Registration No. 36,149
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Edmund J. Walsh, Registration No. 32,950
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Joshua Miller, admitted pro hac vice
`Joshua.Miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___/Michael Smith/__________
`Michael H. Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`i
`
`

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