UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AVER INFORMATION INC., AND IPEVO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Proceeding No. IPR2017-02108
`U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS
`
`EXAMINATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AVER INFORMATION INC., AND IPEVO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Proceeding No. IPR2017-02108
`U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS
`
`EXAMINATION OF VIJAY MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 8), Patent Owner Pathway
`
`Innovation and Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits the following
`
`observations on cross-examination of Vijay Madisetti, Ph. D., with respect to his
`
`testimony in support of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend (Paper 17 or “the Opposition”). The complete transcript of the cross-
`
`examination was previously submitted as Exhibit 2006.
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 12:20-22, Dr. Madisetti when asked if a physical
`
`button displayed is displayed via user interface software, admitted if “it’s a
`
`physical button, it would not be something that would be displayed via user
`
`interface software.” This testimony is generally relevant to the argument in the
`
`Opposition that the combination of Morichika and Liang renders the substitute
`
`claims obvious. (Paper 17 at 17, et seq.).
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 39:1-3, Dr. Madisetti when asked if Morichika
`
`explicitly teaches video zoom, admitted “the answer is no.” This testimony is
`
`generally relevant to Dr. Madisetti’s credibility and the argument in the Opposition
`
`that the combination of Morichika and Liang renders the substitute claims obvious.
`
`(Paper 17 at 17, et seq.).
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 39:11-13, Dr. Madisetti when asked if Morichika
`
`explicitly teaches a video camera, admitted “the answer is no.” This testimony is
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`generally relevant to Dr. Madisetti’s credibility and the argument in the Opposition
`
`that the combination of Morichika and Liang renders the substitute claims obvious.
`
`(Paper 17 at 17, et seq.).
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 71:9-12, when asked if Liang explicitly discloses
`
`the use of a mouse wheel, Dr. Madisetti, admitted, “that there’s no literal English
`
`writing that says you are using the mouse wheel scrolling to zoom.” This testimony
`
`is generally relevant to the argument in the Opposition that the combination of
`
`Morichika and Liang renders the substitute claims obvious. (Paper 17 at 17, et
`
`seq.).
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 22:22-23, Dr. Madisetti testified “probably 25 or
`
`30, maybe more” in response to the question of “[h]ow many cases have you been
`
`an expert in?” This testimony is relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given
`
`to the opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further
`
`stated in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend (Paper 19 at 11).
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 24:1-15, Dr. Madisetti testified “I don’t recall” in
`
`response to the question of “[h]as a Court or the Board ever found any of your
`
`opinions not to be credible?” This testimony is relevant to the weight, if any, that
`
`should be given to the opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex.
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`1025), as further stated in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 19 at 11).
`
`7.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 15:22, 29:18-20, 30:6-7, 33:14-16, and 42:8-12,
`
`Dr. Madisetti testifies by reading back his report or the patents. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given to the opinions in Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further stated in Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`(Paper 19 at 12).
`
`8.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 26:18-23, Dr. Madisetti testifies that his second
`
`declaration was created following a process “largely similar” to his first
`
`declaration. This testimony is relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given to
`
`the opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further
`
`stated in Patent Owner’s Reply in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`(Paper 19 at 12). In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`assertion, in his ITC deposition (Ex. 2005 at 81:19-23), that Morichika’s camera 4c
`
`“provides a video image.” In contrast, Dr. Madisetti’s first declaration (Ex. 1020)
`
`does not address whether Morichika’s camera 4c was a video or still camera. In Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s second declaration he declares that Morichika “is not explicit one way
`
`or the other as to whether the camera is a digital video camera or a digital still
`
`camera.” (Ex. 1025 at ¶ 50).
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`9.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 7:10-24, when Dr. Madisetti is asked what the
`
`word “capturing” means states “[i]t means capturing.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`the weight, if any, that should be given to the opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further stated in Patent Owner’s Reply to
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 19 at 12). This
`
`testimony is particularly relevant to the opinions in paragraphs 24, 53, 126, and
`
`127 of Dr. Madisetti’s First Declaration (Ex. 1020) and paragraphs 51 and 70 of
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s Second Declaration (Ex. 1025).
`
`10.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 14:21-25 and 15:6-13, when Dr. Madisetti is
`
`asked what “video stream” means he states “[i]t means a video stream.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given to the opinions in
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further stated in Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`(Paper 19 at 12). This testimony is particularly relevant to the opinions in
`
`paragraphs 25 of Dr. Madisetti’s First Declaration (Ex. 1020) and paragraphs 58,
`
`76, 77, and 105 of Dr. Madisetti’s Second Declaration (Ex. 1025).
`
`11.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 68:5-9, when Dr. Madisetti is asked “if you move
`
`from an indefinite claim to a definite claim, aren’t you making the claim narrower”
`
`he states “No.” This testimony is generally relevant to Patent Owner’s argument in
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`Amend. (Paper 19 at 5). This testimony is particularly relevant to the opinions in
`
`paragraphs 68, 121, and 124 of Dr. Madisetti’s First Declaration (Ex. 1020) and
`
`paragraphs 39-43, 64-65, and 92 of Dr. Madisetti’s Second Declaration (Ex. 1025).
`
`This testimony is also relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given to the
`
`opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further stated
`
`in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend (Paper 19 at 12).
`
`12.
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 61:7-16, when Dr. Madisetti is asked if “display
`
`resolution can be a storage resolution” he states, “I’ve not specifically opined on
`
`that issue.” This testimony is generally relevant to Patent Owner’s argument in
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend. (Paper 19 at 5). This testimony is particularly relevant to the opinions in
`
`paragraphs 68, 121, and 124 of Dr. Madisetti’s First Declaration (Ex. 1020) and
`
`paragraphs 39-43, 64-65, and 124 of Dr. Madisetti’s Second Declaration (Ex.
`
`1025). This testimony is also relevant to the weight, if any, that should be given to
`
`the opinions in Dr. Madisetti’s Declarations (Ex. 1020 and Ex. 1025), as further
`
`stated in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend (Paper 19 at 12).
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Dated: November 20, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`CASE NO. IPR2017-02108
`
`By: /s/Trevor Q. Coddington, Ph.D.
`TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D.
`PTO REG. NO. 46,633
`DONNY K. SAMPORNA
`PTO REG. NO. 76,604
`SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 792-3446
`Facsimile: (858) 408-4422
`Email: uspto@sandiegoiplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served
`
`electronically via email on November 20, 2018, in its entirety on the following:
`
`
`
`Jackson Ho (jackson.ho@klgates.com)
`Benjamin Weed (benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com)
`Kevin McCormick (kevin.mccormick@klgates.com)
`K&L Gates LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 20, 2018
`
`
`
`/Trevor Coddington/
`Trevor Coddington
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
