`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: January 31, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ACHATES REFERENCE PUBLISHING, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)1
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`1 This Order addresses an issue pertaining to both cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner filed a motion for additional discovery in the instant
`
`proceedings and Patent Owner filed an opposition.2 For the reasons stated
`
`below, Petitioner’s motion is granted.
`
`Patent Owner filed with its response in each proceeding a declaration
`
`from Mr. Dmitry Radbel (Exhibit 2013) and a declaration from Dr. Xin
`
`Wang (Exhibit 2014). In their declarations, Mr. Radbel and Dr. Wang stated
`
`that they relied on the other individual’s declaration with respect to two prior
`
`art references at issue in these proceedings: U.S. Patent No. 5,933,497
`
`(“Beetcher”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,949,876 (“Ginter”). Mr. Radbel stated
`
`that he “rel[ied] upon the descriptions regarding Beetcher given in the
`
`declaration of Mr. Wang.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 93. Dr. Wang stated that he “relied
`
`upon the descriptions of Ginter that Mr. Radbel set forth,” and also relied on
`
`Mr. Radbel’s testimony regarding the “legal standards for validity,” level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and “design approach” of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 7-10, 51, 62.
`
`Petitioner cross-examined both witnesses, and transcripts of their
`
`depositions have been entered into the record. See Exs. 2031, 2032, 2034,
`
`2035. According to Petitioner, Mr. Radbel and Dr. Wang testified during
`
`their depositions that, in addition to the other individual’s declaration, they
`
`also relied on email communications with the other individual as a basis for
`
`their opinions. Mot. 1-3. Petitioner, therefore, seeks discovery of “email
`
`communications exchanged directly between [Patent Owner’s] two experts
`
`
`2 IPR2013-00080, Papers 51 (“Mot.”), 57 (“Opp.”); IPR2013-00081, Papers
`45, 48. While the analysis herein applies to both proceedings, we refer to
`the papers filed in Case IPR2013-00080 for convenience.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`during preparation of their declarations which concern any topic addressed
`
`
`
`in either witness’ declaration.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Pursuant to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
`
`112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), certain discovery is available in
`
`inter partes review proceedings. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); see 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.51-53. Discovery in an inter partes review proceeding, however, is
`
`less than what is normally available in district court patent litigation, as
`
`Congress intended inter partes review to be a quick and cost effective
`
`alternative to litigation. See H. Rep. No. 112-98 at 45-48 (2011). A party
`
`seeking discovery beyond what is expressly permitted by rule must do so by
`
`motion, and must show that such additional discovery is “necessary in the
`
`interest of justice.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i).
`
`The legislative history of the AIA makes clear that additional discovery
`
`should be confined to “particular limited situations, such as minor discovery
`
`that PTO finds to be routinely useful, or to discovery that is justified by the
`
`special circumstances of the case.” 154 Cong. Rec. S9988-89 (daily ed.
`
`Sept. 27, 2008) (statement of Sen. Kyl). In light of this, and given the
`
`statutory deadlines required by Congress for inter partes review
`
`proceedings, the Board will be conservative in authorizing additional
`
`discovery. See id.
`
`The Board considers various factors in determining whether additional
`
`discovery in an inter partes review proceeding is necessary in the interest of
`
`justice, including the following:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`
`
`
`More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation—The mere
`possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that
`something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate
`that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of
`justice. The party requesting discovery should already be in
`possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that
`in fact something useful will be uncovered.
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at
`
`6-7 (Mar. 5, 2013). “Useful” in the context of this factor means “favorable
`
`in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery,” not
`
`just “relevant” or “admissible.” Id. at 7.
`
`Petitioner cites portions of the depositions of Mr. Radbel and
`
`Dr. Wang where the witnesses testified that they had direct email
`
`communications with each other regarding the prior art at issue in these
`
`proceedings. Mot. 2-3. For example, Dr. Wang testified as follows
`
`regarding his communications with Mr. Radbel, particularly with respect to
`
`Ginter:
`
`Q. So the question was, did you speak directly to Mr. Radbel
`before you prepared your declaration?
`
`A. Yes. We had a conversation.
`
`Q. And was that by email or by a telephone call?
`
`A. Email and telephone calls.
`
`Q. And can you tell me what topics you discussed with Mr.
`Radbel?
`
`A. The few things. One is which part we’re going to cover.
`And he has more knowledge than I do, Ginter, and so we kind
`of talk about given the time we have and how we’re going to
`divide the work. And so then we – and we have some
`references, mutual references, cross-references, and we talk
`about how do we deal with that.
`
`. . .
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`
`
`
`Q. So what I wanted to know is whether you discussed in those
`emails the technical analysis you were performing of the prior
`art or the claims that you address in your report?
`
`A. Yeah, we had exchange on those.
`
`Q. So if I looked in those emails, I would see you and Mr.
`Radbel discussing what is being described, for example, in one
`of the patents that was prior art?
`
`A. Basically that’s the nature of it.
`
`Ex. 2034 at 21:1-22:21 (emphasis added). Mr. Radbel confirmed the
`
`discussions regarding Ginter, and stated that the two individuals discussed
`
`the challenged patents and used each other as “sounding boards”:
`
`Q. . . . And what did you discuss with Dr. Wang?
`
`A. We discussed the patents, the issues. Sometimes he would
`use me as a sounding board; sometimes I would use him.
`
`. . .
`
`Q. Okay. And yet you used Dr. Wang as a sounding board for
`some of your views on the Ginter ’876 patent; is that fair?
`
`A. Yeah. I guess.
`
`Ex. 2031 at 17:18-18:5. Similarly, Mr. Radbel testified that he relied on Dr.
`
`Wang’s communications regarding Beetcher:
`
`Q. . . . Did you read Bee[t]cher?
`
`A. I did a quick review. Mr. – Dr. Wang focused on analyzing
`Bee[t]cher, so I relied in part on his statements.
`
`. . .
`
`Q. . . . Were there email statements he made to you that you
`relied on?
`
`A. With regard specifically to Bee[t]cher, I’m not sure.
`
`Q. How about for anything else?
`
`A. We had email exchanges, yeah.
`
`Q. You had email exchanges about Bee[t]cher?
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`
`
`
`A. We had email exchanges because we were collaborating on
`that project.
`
`Q. And was part of that collaboration that you would talk to
`him about his analysis of Bee[t]cher?
`
`A. That was part of the collaboration, yes.
`
`Q. Okay. And Dr. Wang’s analysis of Bee[t]cher informed your
`– the analysis that’s in your report?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 2032 at 329:11-330:10 (emphasis added). Finally, Dr. Wang confirmed
`
`that at least some of the emails he exchanged with Mr. Radbel did not
`
`involve counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Q. Okay. Now, did you send those communications directly to
`Mr. Radbel?
`
`A. I believe so.
`
`Q. So you didn’t send them to the lawyers and then ask the
`lawyers to send them to Mr. Radbel?
`
`A. No. I had direct conversation with him.
`
`Ex. 2034 at 22:22-23:2.
`
`The deposition testimony of Mr. Radbel and Dr. Wang indicates that
`
`they exchanged emails regarding the challenged patents and prior art, and at
`
`least considered the statements in those emails (in addition to the other
`
`individual’s declaration) in forming their opinions regarding the alleged
`
`patentability of the challenged claims over that prior art. This testimony
`
`indicates more than a mere possibility or mere speculation that something
`
`useful will be uncovered by producing the emails. Petitioner’s request is
`
`otherwise proper as well, as it is narrowly tailored to a small number of
`
`emails and would not be overly burdensome for Patent Owner to answer.
`
`Patent Owner argues that there is no indication that the emails contain
`
`anything “useful” to Petitioner, the questions posed by Petitioner during the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`depositions were “inexact,” and the answers provided by the witnesses do
`
`
`
`not show that they relied on the emails. Opp. 1-4. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments are not persuasive. Determining the factual basis for a
`
`declarant’s opinions is a proper inquiry during discovery, and permitting an
`
`opposing party to do so is important to ensure the party has a fair
`
`opportunity to challenge those opinions. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)
`
`(routine discovery permitted of “any exhibit cited in a paper or in testimony”
`
`and “[c]ross examination of affidavit testimony”). The deposition testimony
`
`cited above is sufficiently clear regarding the witnesses’ use of the email
`
`conversations in forming their opinions. As just one example, Mr. Radbel
`
`confirmed that he talked to Dr. Wang about Beetcher and “Dr. Wang’s
`
`analysis of Bee[t]cher informed . . . the analysis” in Mr. Radbel’s
`
`declaration. Ex. 2032 at 329:11-330:10. Petitioner’s discovery request is
`
`based on plain statements in the record, not mere speculation.
`
`Patent Owner’s other arguments in its opposition also are not
`
`persuasive. Patent Owner argues that the Board, in its Order authorizing a
`
`motion for additional discovery (Paper 49), encouraged the parties to
`
`continue their discussions to see if an agreement could be reached, but
`
`Petitioner did not do so in good faith. Opp. 2-4. Patent Owner contends that
`
`Petitioner only emailed Patent Owner and never scheduled a call to discuss
`
`the matter before filing its motion. Id. Notably, however, Patent Owner
`
`does not argue that any compromise or agreement could have been
`
`reached—only that further discussions over the telephone “would have
`
`exposed the lack of a good-faith basis for [Petitioner’s] motion.” See id. at
`
`4. Although the Board encouraged the parties to confer and attempt to reach
`
`an agreement if possible (and continues to do so for other disputes that may
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`arise in these proceedings), it does not appear that any agreement was
`
`
`
`possible, and Petitioner’s motion will not be denied on that basis.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that requiring the production of emails
`
`between Mr. Radbel and Dr. Wang would violate the parties’ agreement
`
`regarding expert discovery. Id. at 4-5. Patent Owner contends that the
`
`parties agreed not to permit discovery regarding the “process” of producing
`
`declarations, citing statements from Petitioner’s counsel during the
`
`deposition of Petitioner’s declarant. Id. (citing Ex. 1045 at 65-66). Patent
`
`Owner, however, has not provided a copy of any agreement between the
`
`parties showing that the parties specifically agreed not to permit discovery of
`
`emails between declarants. Indeed, during a conference call to discuss its
`
`discovery request, Petitioner took the position that the parties’ agreement
`
`was only not to “produce draft expert reports and . . . discovery of privileged
`
`communications with the expert.” Ex. 2030 at 16:10-23. Absent any
`
`evidence of the precise terms of the parties’ agreement, we cannot say that it
`
`would preclude the additional discovery sought by Petitioner. Further, even
`
`if Patent Owner is correct that the parties’ agreement extends to inquiries
`
`into the “process” of drafting declarations, Patent Owner has not explained
`
`sufficiently how materials specifically relied on by a declarant, such as
`
`emails from another declarant, fall within that drafting “process.”
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues in a footnote that the email
`
`communications sought by Petitioner are privileged and should not be
`
`produced without an in camera review by the Board. Opp. 2 n.1. Patent
`
`Owner, however, does not cite any case law or other authority showing that
`
`to be the case. We also note that Petitioner’s request is only for emails “sent
`
`by one witness to the other, . . . not communications with counsel.” Mot. 4.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has met its burden to demonstrate that the additional
`
`discovery it seeks is necessary in the interest of justice. Patent Owner shall
`
`serve copies of the requested email communications on Petitioner. If, after
`
`receiving the email communications, Petitioner believes that additional
`
`action is necessary, it may request a conference call with the Board.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for additional discovery is
`
`granted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall serve on Petitioner,
`
`by February 6, 2014, copies of all email communications exchanged directly
`
`between Mr. Radbel and Dr. Wang during the preparation of their
`
`declarations concerning any topic addressed in either declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00080 (Patent 6,173,403)
`Case IPR2013-00081 (Patent 5,982,889)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph A. Micallef
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brad D. Pedersen
`PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
`prps@ptslaw.com
`
`Jason Paul DeMont
`KAPLAN BREYER SCHWARTZ & OTTESEN
`jpdemont@kbsolaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`