`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
`
`