Filed on behalf of: Arkema Inc. and Arkema France
`By: Mark D. Sweet
`
`Mark J. Feldstein
`
`Erin M. Sommers
`
`Charles W. Mitchell
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: mark.sweet@finnegan.com; mark.feldstein@finnegan.com
`
` erin.sommers@finnegan.com; charles.mitchell@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: May 4, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ARKEMA INC. AND ARKEMA FRANCE
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`PGR2016-00011
`Patent No. 9,157,017
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO BOARD ORDER (PAPER 49)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Exs. 2165 and 2166 Are Untimely and Unauthorized Supplemental Evidence1
`
`Exs. 2165 and 2166 Are Inadmissible as Irrelevant ........................................ 3
`
`III. Exs. 2165 and 2166 Should be Excluded as Inadmissible Hearsay ................ 4
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Board Decisions
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Cyber Switching Patents, LLC,
`IPR2015-00690, Paper 28 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2015) .................................................. 1
`
`HTC Corp. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC,
`IPR2014-01156, Paper 36 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2015) ............................................... 2
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01892, Paper 23 (PTAB May 24, 2016) ............................................... 3
`
`Taiwan Semiconductors Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Godo Kaishi IP Bridge 1,
`IPR2016-01249, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 20, 2017) ............................................ 2-3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 804 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 805 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807(3) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
` Further to its timely objections to preserve its rights (Paper 44) and
`
`authorization from the Board (Paper 49), Petitioner moves to exclude Exs. 2165
`
`and 2166. Patent Owner filed this supplemental evidence with its April 17
`
`opposition (Paper 42) to Petitioner’s motion to exclude (Paper 36) Ex. 2103—the
`
`Thomas declaration filed with Patent Owner’s response in December (Paper 24).
`
`Although Patent Owner was on notice that Arkema timely objected to Ex. 2103 “as
`
`inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801 and 802), that does not fall under any
`
`exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and 807” and reserved its right to depose
`
`Dr. Thomas (Paper 25 at 16-17), Honeywell did not submit its supplemental
`
`evidence until more than three months later and then without leave from the Board.
`
`Exs. 2165 and 2166 should be excluded, if not outright expunged.
`
`I.
`
`Exs. 2165 and 2166 Are Untimely and Unauthorized Supplemental
`Evidence
`
`Honeywell’s declarants do not rely on Exs. 2165 and 2166; and on the
`
`May 1 call with the Board, Honeywell represented that it filed Exs. 2165 and 2166
`
`only to address Arkema’s arguments regarding the admissibility of Ex. 2103. As
`
`such, Exs. 2165 and 2166 can only be supplemental evidence. IPR2015-00690,
`
`Paper 28 at 5-6 (“Supplemental evidence, served in response to an evidentiary
`
`objection, is offered solely to support admissibility of the originally filed evidence
`
`and to defeat a motion to exclude that evidence, and not to support any argument
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`on the merits . . . .”).
`
`That supplemental evidence, however, was not timely served as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). It was over 3 months late. Honeywell asserted for the
`
`first time on that call that it was not restricted by that timeframe because Arkema’s
`
`objections were not “sufficiently particularized.” This is not true. Arkema’s
`
`objections make clear that Ex. 2103 is hearsay and that it “reserves its right to
`
`cross-examine” Dr. Thomas. Paper 25 at 16-17 (citing Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48761 (Aug. 14, 2012)); see also IPR2014-01156,
`
`Paper 36 at 25-26 (concluding declaration in IPR is not hearsay because it is direct
`
`testimony subject to cross-examination). Because Honeywell maintains that Ex.
`
`2103 is not hearsay based on Exs. 2165 and 2166, Honeywell could and should
`
`have served them in response to Arkema’s original objection to Ex. 2103, when
`
`discovery was still ongoing. This is irrespective of Honeywell’s later refusal to
`
`make Dr. Thomas (the apparent author of Ex. 2103) available for deposition to
`
`justify late supplemental evidence. Or, had Honeywell believed that Arkema’s
`
`hearsay objection in Paper 25 was deficient, it could have challenged the propriety
`
`of Arkema’s motion to exclude long before the May 1 call. It did not.
`
`Moreover, even if such supplemental evidence was timely served,
`
`Honeywell did not seek authorization to file Exs. 2165 and 2166, denying Arkema
`
`the requisite notice the Board’s rules and procedures ensure. IPR2016-01249,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`Paper 12 at 3 (“[W]e view 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) as authorizing the service, but
`
`not filing, of supplemental evidence in response to objections.”).
`
`No good cause exists for Honeywell’s self-help in waiving the time period
`
`prescribed by § 42.64(b)(2) and filing Exs. 2165 and 2166 without authorization.
`
`IPR2015-01892, Paper 23 at 5-6 (may not rely on supplemental evidence served
`
`late without authorization).
`
`II. Exs. 2165 and 2166 Are Inadmissible as Irrelevant
`Honeywell does not rely on the testimony of Dr. Singh in Exs. 2165 and
`
`2166 in its substantive papers, and thus they have no “consequence in determining
`
`the action.” FRE 401. Nor do they support the admissibility of Ex. 2103.
`
`Hearsay testimony from a different witness (Dr. Singh) does not establish
`
`the trustworthiness of Dr. Thomas’s own hearsay (Ex. 2103). Nor can Dr. Singh’s
`
`testimony (Exs. 2165 & 2166) establish the trustworthiness of the data underlying
`
`Table 3 in Ex. 2103 because apparently Dr. Thomas, not Singh, conducted the
`
`original testing. Compare Ex. 2103 ¶ 8, with Ex. 2165 ¶ 9. Further, allowing into
`
`evidence Exs. 2165 and 2166, which include information that goes beyond the
`
`record as established before the close of substantive briefing, is highly prejudicial
`
`to Arkema. Arkema and its experts have had no opportunity to address the
`
`substance of those exhibits, including for example, Dr. Singh’s interpretation of
`
`Inagaki (Ex. 1012). See Ex. 2165 ¶¶ 2-4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`III. Exs. 2165 and 2166 Should be Excluded as Inadmissible Hearsay
`If, contrary to Honeywell’s representations, it seeks to rely on Exs. 2165 and
`
`2166 for any purported truth they may disclose, they are hearsay and should be
`
`excluded. Absent at least cross-examination in this proceeding in relation to this
`
`patent, the testimony of Dr. Singh (Exs. 2165 and 2166) is hearsay (FRE 801, 802)
`
`to which no exception applies: (1) Honeywell cannot credibly argue that any of
`
`the exceptions of FRE 803 apply; (2) Honeywell has not shown that Dr. Singh is
`
`unavailable under FRE 804; (3) and Honeywell cannot meet the requirements of
`
`FRE 807. For example, Honeywell has not established that these exhibits are
`
`“more probative on the point for which it is offered” than taking Dr. Thomas’s
`
`deposition in this proceeding, which Arkema was entitled to do as routine
`
`discovery. FRE 807(3). Moreover, FRE 703, which does not demand admission
`
`of hearsay evidence, is inapplicable because none of Honeywell’s purported
`
`experts relied on Exs. 2165 and 2166.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For all of the foregoing reasons, Arkema respectfully requests that the Board
`
`exclude Exs. 2165 and 2166 and expunge them from the record.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: May 4, 2017
`
`
`By: /Mark J. Feldstein/
`Mark J. Feldstein, Reg. No. 46,693
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Arkema Inc. and Arkema France
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017
`PGR2016-00011
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion
`
`to Exclude Pursuant to Board Order (Paper 49) was filed by 5:00 PM and
`
`served electronically via email on May 4, 2017, in its entirety, on the following:
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C.
`Noah Frank
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`615 Fifteenth Street, NW
`Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 879-5290
`Fax: (202) 879-5200
`glocascio@kirkland.com
`noah.frank@kirkland.com
`
`Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to electronic service by email to
`HON_PTAB_Service@kirkland.com.
`
`/Erin M. Sommers/
`Erin M. Sommers, Reg. No. 60,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`