`
`Filed on behalf of:
`
`Patent Owner SightSound Technologies, LLC
`
`By: David R. Marsh, Ph.D.
`
`Kristan L. Lansbery, Ph.D.
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`555 12th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 942-5068
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGHTSOUND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2013-00020
`Patent 5,191,573
`
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Observations Regarding CompuSonics
`
`Observation #1.
`
`In exhibit 2175, on pages 23:11-20 and 33:24-34:16, Dr.
`
`Kelly testified that he had no personal knowledge of CompuSonics’ products or
`
`materials and that his understanding of CompuSonics’ activities, including any
`
`demonstrations, was “based solely on the record to date.” Dr. Kelly further testified
`
`on pages 29:1-5 and 34:18-21 that he never reviewed the Declaration of John P.
`
`Stautner (Ex. 2121), CompuSonics’ first employee and President of CompuSonics
`
`Video Corporation. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kelly’s invalidity analyses in
`
`paragraphs 32-40 and appendix C of his first declaration (Ex. 4132) and paragraphs 4-
`
`27 and 82-83 of his second declaration (Ex. 4262). The testimony is relevant because
`
`it demonstrates that Dr. Kelly disregarded probative evidence and did not have the
`
`complete record before him when formulating his opinions regarding CompuSonics.
`
`Observation #2.
`
`In exhibit 2175, on pages 25:2-22, 27:12-14, and 28:9-21,
`
`Dr. Kelly testified that, for purposes of his anticipation and obviousness opinions, the
`
`“CompuSonics system” includes “everything” such as publications, hardware, sales
`
`demonstrations, and even Mr. Schwartz’s deposition (Ex. 2124). Dr. Kelly further
`
`testified on pages 141:5-17 that his analyses have always consisted of all such materials
`
`and never a subset of the whole. This testimony is relevant to (1) Petitioner’s reliance
`
`on a so-called “CompuSonics system” for its invalidity contentions throughout the
`
`current proceeding, as demonstrated in its Petition (Paper 6) on pages 33-55 and its
`
`Reply (Paper 52) on page 5, and (2) Dr. Kelly’s invalidity analyses in paragraphs 32-40
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`and appendix C of his first declaration (Ex. 4132) and paragraphs 4-27 and 82-83 of
`
`his second declaration (Ex. 4262). The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`that Petitioner and Dr. Kelly applied an erroneous standard in determining whether
`
`the claims at issue in the current proceeding are invalid.
`
`II. Observations Regarding the Second Memory
`
`Observation #3.
`
`In exhibit 2175, on pages 45:7-15, Dr. Kelly testified that
`
`he is not familiar with the patent law doctrines of disavowal and disclaimer. Dr. Kelly
`
`further testified on page 56:8-25, in the context of whether the specification
`
`influenced the claims at issue in the current proceeding, that certain portions of text
`
`from the ‘573 patent specification are “broader than the -- than the challenged claims
`
`certainly.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kelly’s opinions in paragraphs 4-13 of his
`
`second declaration (Ex. 4262). The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`Dr. Kelly applied an erroneous standard (one in which he did not properly consider
`
`the specification of the ‘573 patent) in determining whether the term “second
`
`memory” is limited to non-removable media.
`
`Observation #4.
`
`In exhibit 2175, on pages 49:5-12 and 51:5-13, Dr. Kelly
`
`testified that “it is an objective of the inventor that it’s a further objective to -- to
`
`provide a new way of storing and retrieving digital audio music.” See also Ex. 2175 at
`
`56:8-25. Dr. Kelly further testified on pages 58:24-59:6 that three inefficiencies
`
`described by the ‘573 patent—“materials,” “size,” and “retrieval”—“are the result of
`
`the -- of this being basically hardware units.” This testimony is relevant to (1) Patent
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s argument in its Response (Paper 41) on pages 25-28 that the second memory
`
`is limited to non-removable media, and (2) Dr. Kelly’s opinions in paragraphs 4-13 of
`
`his second declaration (Ex. 4262). The testimony is relevant because it undermines
`
`Dr. Kelly’s opinion that the second memory is not limited to non-removable media.
`
`III. Observations Regarding Non-Obviousness
`
`Observation #5.
`
`In exhibit 2176, on pages 95:17-20 and 98:21-99:12, Mr.
`
`Robbin testified that he was a co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,797,242 (the “‘242
`
`patent”), relating to “network-based purchase and distribution of media,” with a
`
`provisional filing date of April 25, 2003, which is “around the time that [Petitioner]
`
`did [iTMS].” Mr. Robbin further testified on pages 105:23-106:7 that the patent
`
`application sets forth as claim 1 “[a] method for purchasing access to a media item
`
`over a network” with parts (a) through (d), which are listed below:
`
`A method for purchasing access to a media item over a network, said
`
`method comprising: (a) receiving, over the network, a buy request from
`
`a user requesting to buy a particular media item, the buy request being
`
`initiated by the user through a single graphical user interface action by
`
`the user once an identifier for the particular media item is displayed on a
`
`display screen for the user, and the buy request including an account
`
`identifier for the user; (b) initiating payment for the particular media
`
`item being purchased in response to the buy request being received, the
`
`payment being processed using information previously stored in a user
`
`account associated with the user; (c) determining media access
`
`information pertaining to the particular media item; and (d) sending,
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`over the network, the media access information to a user machine of the
`
`user, the media access information thereafter being used by the user
`
`machine to access the particular media item.
`
`See Ex. 9 of Robbin Dep. (Ex. 2176). This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument in its Response (Paper 41) on pages 59-66 that the claims at issue in this
`
`proceeding were not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) sought
`
`similar patent claims in 2003 to what it now contends was obvious in 1988.
`
`Observation #6.
`
`In exhibit 2176, on pages 70:19-71:6, Mr. Robbin testified
`
`that he signed an inventor’s oath for the application that led to the ‘242 patent (and
`
`which has the same docket number as the application with claim 1 as set forth above)
`
`stating that he is an inventor of the subject matter that is claimed and for which a
`
`patent is sought and that, to his knowledge, he has never signed a patent application
`
`stating that he believed himself to be the first inventor of subject matter that was in
`
`the prior art. This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument in its Response
`
`(Paper 41) on pages 59-66 that the claims at issue in this proceeding were not obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Mr. Robbin did not believe, in 2003, that the subject matter of
`
`claim 1, which is similar to the claims at issue in this proceeding, was in the prior art.
`
`Observation #7.
`
`In exhibit 2176, on pages 111:9-21 and 109:2-110:10, Mr.
`
`Robbin testified that he did not see anything in the Background of the Invention
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`section of the ‘242 patent that indicated that the idea that it would be desirable to sell
`
`music and video files over computer networks was prevalent in the industry since the
`
`mid-1980s and was unable to identify any references cited during the prosecution of
`
`the ‘242 patent from the mid-1980s. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Robbin’s
`
`assertion in paragraph 9 of his declaration (Ex. 4255) that the idea that it would be
`
`desirable to sell music and video files over computer networks was “prevalent in the
`
`industry since the mid-1980s.” The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`neither Mr. Robbin nor Petitioner told the PTO of that “fact” when it sought similar
`
`patent claims in the early 2000’s.
`
`IV. Observations Regarding Commercial Success
`
`Observation #8.
`
`In exhibit 2174, on page 59:8-18, Mr. Kenswil testified that
`
`the claims of Patent Owner’s patent “were certainly necessary for digital sales.” Mr.
`
`Kenswil further testified on pages 86:7-12 and 124:14-125:20 that “there are people
`
`who value buying music online” and some iTMS consumers make a choice to acquire
`
`music in a particular format. This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument
`
`in its Response (Paper 41) on pages 71-77 that there is a nexus between the claimed
`
`invention and Petitioner’s sales of digital audio signals through iTMS. The testimony
`
`is relevant because it confirms the existence of such a nexus.
`
`Observation #9.
`
`In exhibit 2174, on page 143:1-17, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that “the number one reason” that digital downloads began replacing physical medial
`
`sales “was disaggregation. . . . [T]he consumer now had the choice to buy one or two
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`tracks for a dollar each rather than having to pay 12 to $16 for an entire CD. That
`
`was a huge incentive to switch to buying that way. . . . [Consumers] enjoyed the
`
`flexibility of listening to music by their own play lists so they could re-order the songs
`
`which -- having basically a track-by-track jukebox facilitated as opposed to having to
`
`put CDs in and out of a CD player. I think those are the main reasons why it took off
`
`as it did as industry format.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument
`
`in its Response (Paper 41) on pages 71-77 that there is a nexus between the claimed
`
`invention and Petitioner’s sales of digital audio signals through iTMS. The testimony
`
`is relevant because the “main reasons” that Mr. Kenswil provides for why the digital
`
`downloads “took off as an industry format” are benefits attributable to the patented
`
`methods for purchasing “desired” digital signals.
`
`Observation #10. In exhibit 2174, on page 60:11-61:10, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that iTMS “had substantial quantity of sales immediately” and was “profitable from
`
`the instant they started.” Mr. Kenswil further testified on pages 109:16-23 and
`
`129:18-130:2 that the “genius” feature (which he identified as “important to the
`
`success of iTMS” (Ex. 4256 ¶ 93)) was not available until “several years after the
`
`launch” of iTMS and after “hundreds of millions” of songs were already sold through
`
`iTMS. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on
`
`page 13 and Mr. Kenswil’s opinion in paragraph 93 of his declaration (Ex. 4256) that
`
`the success of iTMS was attributable to features not covered by the ‘573 patent. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that certain features that Mr. Kenswil
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted were important to the success of iTMS were introduced after iTMS was
`
`already commercially successful.
`
`Observation #11. In exhibit 2174, pages 106:2-111:6, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that he did not know when various features that he identified in paragraph 93 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 4256) as “important to the success of iTMS” became available or
`
`what impact there would have been on sales through iTMS had those features not
`
`been introduced. Mr. Kenswil further testified on page 111:25-112:4 that he did not
`
`ask whether Petitioner had data showing that those features were important to the
`
`success of iTMS. Mr. Kenswil further testified on page 121:5-123:1 that many of
`
`those features required a user to click a link to view the information associated with
`
`the feature and that he did not ask whether Petitioner tracks the extent to which those
`
`features were being used. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in its
`
`Reply (Paper 52) on page 13 (citing Ex. 4256 ¶¶ 92-93) that the success of iTMS was
`
`attributable to features not covered by the ‘573 patent. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that Mr. Kenswil did not have a reliable basis for such an opinion.
`
`Observation #12. In exhibit 2174, on page 130:14-17, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that he viewed a feature as important to the success of iTMS where “it contributed to
`
`additional sales.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in its Reply
`
`(Paper 52) on page 13 and Mr. Kenswil’s opinion in paragraph 93 of his declaration
`
`(Ex. 4256) that the success of iTMS was attributable to features not covered by the
`
`‘573 patent. The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Mr. Kenswil
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`applied an erroneous standard and attributed success to non-patented features added
`
`well after iTMS was already commercially successful.
`
`Observation #13. In exhibit 2174, on pages 76:3-5 and 76:12-16, Mr. Kenswil
`
`agreed that Petitioner’s reputation changed and took a dive at various points in time.
`
`Mr. Kenswil further testified on pages 75:3-8 and 82:16-83:17 that he “did nothing in
`
`the time period during the preparation of [his] declaration” to determine how
`
`Petitioner was perceived in the years just prior to the launch of iTMS and did not
`
`review an article that stated that Petitioner was struggling to return to profitability and
`
`revive its reputation in the 2000 time period. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 13, and Mr. Kenswil’s opinion in paragraphs
`
`67, 85, 93, and 98 of his declaration (Ex. 4256) that the success of iTMS was due in
`
`part to Petitioner’s brand name and reputation. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Mr. Kenswil did not have a reliable basis for such an opinion.
`
`Observation #14. In exhibit 2174, on pages 79:10-80:23, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that he did not consider the quotation attributed to Mr. Jobs (Ex. 8 of Kenswil Dep.
`
`(Ex. 2174)) that Petitioner’s “smaller market share turned out to be an asset” and that
`
`Petitioner “convinced [the record labels to grant Petitioner rights to content] to do it
`
`on the Mac at first” because “‘[w]ell, if, you know, if the virus gets out, it’s only going
`
`to pollute 5 percent of the garden here.’ And that’s probably what in the end enabled
`
`[Petitioner] to get [the record labels] to come along with us.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 13, and Mr.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenswil’s opinions in paragraphs 67, 80, 85, 93, and 98 of his declaration (Ex. 4256)
`
`that the commercial success of iTMS was due in part to Petitioner’s brand name and
`
`reputation. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Mr. Kenswil’s opinion.
`
`Observation #15. In exhibit 2174, on page 41:20-42:11, Mr. Kenswil testified
`
`that he “read the bulk of [the ‘573 and ‘440 patents]” but that “there may be some
`
`sections [he] didn’t read.” Mr. Kenswil also failed, on pages 44:12-45:6, to identify the
`
`claims as the portion of the ‘573 and ‘440 patents that he reviewed in trying to
`
`determine the nature of the invention. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Kenswil’s
`
`opinion in paragraph 30 of his declaration (Ex. 4256) in which he disagrees “that there
`
`is a nexus between any alleged merits of the claimed invention and the commercial
`
`success of iTMS.” The testimony is relevant because the fact that Mr. Kenswil could
`
`not confirm that he looked at the claims or the entirety of the patents undermines the
`
`credibility of his opinion.
`
`Observation #16. In exhibit 2175, on pages 71:8-72:2, Dr. Kelly testified that
`
`he did not compare the features identified in paragraphs 66-81 of his second
`
`declaration (Ex. 4262) to any particular version of iTunes or iTMS and that it is
`
`“entirely fair to say” and “likely” that the first releases of iTunes and iTMS,
`
`respectively, did not include all such features. Dr. Kelly further testified on pages
`
`81:23-83:7 that he “saw” the filing dates of the patents identified in paragraphs 66-81
`
`(Exs. 4212-4250) of his second declaration (Ex. 4262) but that he did not “recall what
`
`else [he] did with that information” and that he did not include an analysis in his
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`second declaration (Ex. 4262) of which version of iTunes/iTMS applied each patent.
`
`See also Ex. 2175 at 80:7-81:3. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in
`
`its Reply (Paper 52) on page 10 (citing Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 66-81; Exs. 4209-4250) that “iTMS
`
`embodies lots of inventions, many the subject of [Petitioner’s] own patents.” The
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Kelly’s opinions regarding
`
`whether iTMS embodies Petitioner’s own patents are unreliable.
`
`Observation #17. In exhibit 2175, on pages 69:10-70:15, Dr. Kelly testified,
`
`with respect to the patents identified in paragraph 67 of his second declaration (Ex.
`
`4262), that he did not generate any claim charts and that he only looked at “some of
`
`the claims in the patents,” despite claiming that “[t]hese patents demonstrate
`
`[Petitioner’s] innovation, including in the context of iTMS/iTunes, and cover aspects
`
`of iTMS/iTunes that [Patent Owner] does not accuse of practicing the ‘573 patent.”
`
`Ex. 4262 ¶ 66. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument in its Reply (Paper
`
`52) on page 10 (citing Ex. 4262 ¶¶ 66-81) that “iTMS embodies lots of inventions,
`
`many the subject of [Petitioner’s] own patents.” The testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Kelly’s opinions regarding whether iTMS embodies Petitioner’s
`
`own patents are unreliable.
`
`Observation #18. In exhibit 2176, on pages 40:12-24, 41:18-22, and 74:23-
`
`75:6, Mr. Robbin testified that he did not review the nine patents in paragraph 7 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 4255) prior to signing the declaration and does not remember
`
`whether he reviewed any of them after the initial applications were filed. This
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony is relevant to (1) Petitioner’s assertion in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 10
`
`that “iTMS embodies lots of inventions, many the subject of [Petitioner’s] own
`
`patents,” and (2) Mr. Robbin’s assertion in paragraph 7 of his declaration (Ex. 4255)
`
`that “[Petitioner] has been granted U.S. patents on many inventions relating to
`
`[iTMS]” before proceeding to list and describe nine patents. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it establishes that Mr. Robbin did not have a reliable basis for his testimony.
`
`Observation #19. In exhibit 2175, on pages 65:18-21, 67:21-68:2, and 12:13-
`
`13:13, Dr. Kelly testified that he did not rely on Petitioner’s own technical
`
`information in forming his opinions for the current proceeding. Dr. Kelly further
`
`testified on pages 65:18-21, 67:21-68:2, and 68:23-69:2 that he has “certainly seen
`
`Apple confidential information” as well as Petitioner’s source code and the non-
`
`redacted expert report of Dr. Tygar (see also Ex. 2175 at 19:5-13) when analyzing
`
`Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the underlying litigation. This testimony
`
`is relevant to (1) Petitioner’s argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on pages 10-11 that
`
`“iTMS is not ‘coextensive’ with the claims,” and (2) Dr. Kelly’s opinions on
`
`iTMS/iTunes in paragraphs 28-81 of his second declaration (Ex. 4262). The
`
`testimony is relevant because it establishes that Dr. Kelly disregarded the most reliable
`
`information available to him when forming his opinions.
`
`Observation #20. In exhibit 2175, on pages 76:3-8, Dr. Kelly testified, in
`
`response to a question regarding marketing surveys pertaining to specific iTMS
`
`features, that he had seen Petitioner’s “marketing studies in the past, but in the
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`context of this proceeding, [he] didn’t -- [he] didn’t look at any marketing surveys or
`
`studies.” Dr. Kelly further testified on pages 124:19-125:14 that he “made no attempt
`
`to tease out which one of these factors -- what the contribution of each of these
`
`aspects was.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply (Paper
`
`52) on pages 10-13 that the “iTMS is not ‘coextensive’ with the claims” and “there is
`
`no nexus between the success of iTMS and the alleged invention.” The testimony is
`
`relevant because it establishes that Dr. Kelly disregarded the most reliable information
`
`available to him when offering his opinions in support of Petitioner’s arguments.
`
`Observation #21. In exhibit 2175, on page 105:15-17, Dr. Kelly testified that
`
`he did not recall what forms of payment iTMS accepted when it launched in April of
`
`2003. See Ex. 2175 at 104:18-21, 105:9-11, 119:12-14; 129:24-130:2. Dr. Kelly further
`
`testified on pages 115:3-7, 117:12-14, and 118:10-22 that he did not know when iTMS
`
`began aggregating credit card payments. This testimony is relevant to (1) Petitioner’s
`
`argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 11 that “[Patent Owner] also has failed to
`
`establish that iTMS is even covered by the [claims at issue in this proceeding],” and (2)
`
`Dr. Kelly’s opinions in paragraphs 36-44 and 55-59 of his second declaration (Ex.
`
`4262). The testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Kelly’s opinions regarding
`
`whether the claims cover the relevant version of iTMS are unreliable.
`
`Observation #22. In exhibit 2175, on pages 123:14-23, Dr. Kelly testified that
`
`he did not know the percentage of iTMS transactions that occur via cellular networks
`
`or Wi-Fi. Dr. Kelly further testified on pages 123:24-124:1 that iOS devices did not
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`exist in 2003, when iTMS launched. This testimony is relevant to (1) Petitioner’s
`
`argument in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 11 that “[Patent Owner] also has failed to
`
`establish that iTMS is even covered by the [claims at issue in this proceeding],” and (2)
`
`Dr. Kelly’s opinions in paragraphs 50-54 of his second declaration (Ex. 4262). The
`
`testimony is relevant because it (1) demonstrates that Dr. Kelly did not have a
`
`sufficient basis for his opinion, and (2) demonstrates that Dr. Kelly’s opinions
`
`regarding whether the claims cover the relevant version of iTMS are unreliable.
`
`Observation #23. In exhibit 2175, on page 108:8-18, Dr. Kelly testified that
`
`he “believes that there are multiple ways that an iTunes asset can be acquired.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertion in its Reply (Paper 52) on page 11 that
`
`the “[Patent Owner] also has failed to establish that iTMS is even covered by the
`
`claims.” The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates the contradictory nature
`
`of Petitioner’s arguments that (1) iTMS does not practice the claims of the ‘573 patent
`
`because iTMS accepts payment methods that are not a credit card (see Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper 52) at 11); yet (2) vague allusions to payment in CompuSonics
`
`disclosures, which according to Dr. Kelly can be performed in “multiple ways,”
`
`invalidate the very same claims of the ‘573 patent.
`
`V. Observations Regarding Copying of the Patented Invention
`
`Observation #24. In exhibit 2176, on page 54:2-12, Mr. Robbin testified that
`
`Mr. Jobs was involved in the decision to develop a music purchase service within
`
`Petitioner and that “we had lots of conversations that included Steve just around
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`doing a music store.” Mr. Robbin further testified on page 32:1-8 that Mr. Jobs
`
`“would be involved in how we decided to build iTunes, so he would work on user
`
`interface and feature definition, and just generally coming up with ideas of how it
`
`should all work.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s assertion in its
`
`Response (Paper 41) on pages 16-19 and 77-78 that Petitioner copied the patented
`
`invention. The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Mr. Jobs, to whom
`
`Patent Owner had previously disclosed its patented methods, was involved in
`
`developing iTMS.
`
`Observation #25. In exhibit 2176, on page 87:6-23, Mr. Robbin confirmed
`
`that Mr. Jobs had stated that Petitioner has “always been shameless about stealing
`
`great ideas” in a video clip, shown at the deposition from
`
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Patent Owner’s assertion in its Response (Paper 41) on pages 16-19 and 77-78 that
`
`Petitioner copied the patented invention. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`supports Patent Owner’s assertion of copying.
`
`Observation #26. In exhibit 2173, on pages 49:15-23, 50:8-18, 51:6-12, 52:8-
`
`11, and 53:3-5, Mr. Weyer testified that he does not remember what he may have
`
`learned or was provided at the 1999 meeting with Patent Owner. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s assertion in its Reply (Paper 52) on pages 14-15 that Mr.
`
`Weyer never “provided any information to the team that eventually developed iTMS.”
`
`The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Mr. Weyer does not remember
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`the meeting with Patent Owner in sufficient detail to declare accurately whether he
`
`provided information learned at the meeting to Petitioner.
`
`Observation #27. In exhibit 2172, on pages 10:19-24, 21:6-13, 27:12-25, and
`
`28:12-29:24, Mr. Mazzoni testified that he does not remember what he may have
`
`learned or was provided at the 1999 meeting with Patent Owner. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s assertion in its Reply (Paper 52) on pages 14-15 that Mr.
`
`Mazzoni never “provided any information to the team that eventually developed
`
`iTMS.” The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Mr. Mazzoni does not
`
`remember the meeting with Patent Owner in sufficient detail to declare accurately
`
`whether he provided information learned at the meeting to Petitioner.
`
`VI. Observations Regarding Credibility of Declaration Testimony
`
`Observation #28. In exhibit 2174, on page 45:7-14, Mr. Kenswil testified that
`
`he did not read the depositions of Mr. Hair or Mr. Sander. This testimony is relevant
`
`to the entirety of Mr. Kenswil’s declaration, but in particular paragraphs 36, 41, 44, 45,
`
`50, 56, and 64, all of which cite and rely upon deposition testimony of Mr. Hair and
`
`Mr. Sander, and any opinion based upon those paragraphs. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that Mr. Kenswil did not review certain materials cited in his own
`
`declaration.
`
`Dated: April 11, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /David R. Marsh/
`David R. Marsh, Ph.D. -- Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Observations on Cross-Examination, Patent Owner’s Updated Exhibit List April
`
`11, 2014, and Exhibit 2176 were served on April 11, 2014 to the following Counsel
`
`for Petitioner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Steven.Baughman@ropesgray.com
`Ching-Lee.Fukuda@ropesgray.com
`ApplePTABServiceSightSound@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`/David R. Marsh/
`David R. Marsh (Atty. Reg. No. 41,408)
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`555 12th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 942-5068
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`
`-16-
`
`
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
