`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________________
`
`
`Sony Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00877
`U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1034 (ECMA 319) under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence. Exhibit 1034 was submitted for the first time along
`
`with Petitioner’s Reply, but was not cited in the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Exhibit 1034 is not prior art and is irrelevant, prejudicial, and
`
`outside the proper scope of this proceeding. Patent Owner timely objected to this
`
`exhibit (Paper 23).
`
`II. REASONS THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE
`GRANTED
`
`A.
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) apply to inter partes reviews.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62. FRE 401 and 402 provide that only relevant evidence is
`
`admissible. FRE 403 allows exclusion for evidence whose probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of “unfair prejudice” or “confusing the
`
`issues.”
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1034 is Irrelevant, Prejudicial, and Untimely
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1034 in its Petition or in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply; the document is relied upon only by Petitioner’s expert in his
`
`written testimony. It should be excluded from the record on that basis alone. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 (“each petition …. must include … a detailed explanation of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`significance of the evidence...”); § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be
`
`incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).
`
`Exhibit 1034 is a document entitled ECMA Standard 319, titled Data
`
`Interchange on 12,7 mm 384-Track Magnetic Tape Cartridges – Ultrium 1 Format.
`
`Mr. von Alten first cited to Exhibit 1034 in his “Reply Declaration” submitted with
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. Mr. von Alten relied on this exhibit to allegedly show that
`
`“ECMA-319, the standard that the LTO consortium prepared in the late 1990s and
`
`published in 2001” illustrated clearance between the braking member and the inner
`
`surface of the hub. Ex. 1033 ⁋16, n4. In addition, Mr. von Alten relied on Exhibit
`
`1034 to show that the LTO consortium allegedly “absolutely recognized that the
`
`mating components that connect the braking member to the cartridge shell would
`
`have clearances.” Ex. 1033 ⁋24.
`
`However, as Mr. von Alten admits, Exhibit 1034 was “published in 2001,”
`
`and thus, postdates U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 (“’905 Patent”). The ’905 Patent
`
`has a priority date of November 8, 1999 and Exhibit 1034 was not published until
`
`June 2001. Thus, Exhibit 1034 is not prior art to the ’905 Patent.
`
`Further, Mr. von Alten appears to rely on Exhibit 1034 to show that since
`
`Exhibit 1034 allegedly discloses clearances, the prior art on which Petitioner relies
`
`does as well. However, Petitioner has not provided any support for a relationship
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`between the disclosure of Exhibit 1034 and the prior art, and any alleged clearance
`
`shown in Exhibit 1034 does not show or imply clearance in the prior art.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Because Exhibit 1034 cannot support Petitioner’s grounds submitted in the
`
`Petition, Exhibit 1034 is irrelevant under FRE 401-402. Further, since Exhibit
`
`1034 is not prior art, and Petitioner is using it to imply that certain features existed
`
`in the prior art, Exhibit 1034 is unduly prejudicial under FRE 403.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams
`Reg. No. 50,822
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7511
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7611
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`May 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 21st day
`
`of May 2019, a complete and entire copy of this Motion to Exclude Evidence was
`
`filed with the PTAB through its E2E system and served via email on attorneys of
`
`record for Sony at the following address:
`
`Richard F. Giunta
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Michael N. Rader
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Randy J. Pritzker
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Nathan Speed
`Nathan.Speed@WolfGreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`
`May 21, 2019
`
`/Eliot D. Williams/
`Eliot D. Williams
`Reg. No. 50,822
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 739-7511
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7611
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`