throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTEL U.S. INC. and AUTEL INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.
`Petitioners
`v.
`BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2014-00183
`Patent No. 6,904,796
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`Patent Owner, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS LLC.,
`
`submits this Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibit
`
`2031.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
`SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`By: /Timothy M. McCarthy/
`
`
`John E. Berg
`CLARK HILL PLC
`500 Woodward Ave. Suite 3500
`Detroit, Michigan 48226
`jberg@clarkhill.com
`tel 313-965-8417
`
`Timothy M. McCarthy
`Reg. No. 42,855
`CLARK HILL PLC
`150 N. Michigan Ave., 27th Fl.
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`tmccarthy@clarkhill.com
`tel 312-985-5561
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner submitted a Second Declaration of Michael Nranian, Exhibit
`
`2031. The declaration states “All statements herein made of my knowledge are
`
`true, and all statements herein made based on information and belief and believe to
`
`be true.” Exhibit 2013 at ¶ 2. Petitioner objected that this declaration is not an
`
`affidavit.
`
`This affirmation meets the standard of 28 U.S.C. Section 1746. That statute
`
`suggests a form of language but notes that affirmation need only be in
`
`“substantially” the form suggest. The language used in Mr. Nranian’s Second
`
`Declaration is substantially similar to the form required by the statute.
`
`Please note that Petitioner does not suggest any suspicious circumstances to
`
`Mr. Nranian’s Second Declaration, or that the circumstances of execution of the
`
`declaration indicate untrustworthiness. Petitioner appears to object solely to the
`
`fact that the affirmation does not exactly track the language of Section 1746.
`
`(Please note, however, that Patent Owner did not actually say so in its objection,
`
`Exhibit 2031, which does not refer to Section 1746.) Accordingly, the Board
`
`should find that the affirmation substantially complies with the statute and deny the
`
`Motion to Exclude.
`
`In the event that the Board disagrees, Patent Owner requests leave to submit
`
`an amendment to Exhibit 2031, signed by Mr. Nranian, stating “I, Michael
`
`Nranian, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR20014-00183
`Page 2
`
`

`

`America that the statements may in my Second Declaration, executed by me on
`
`October 8, 2014, are true and correct.” (copy attached) This amendment is not the
`
`submission of new and additional evidence, but is instead the correction of a
`
`technical error and, in the interests of justice, the Board should allow this
`
`submission and deny the Motion to Exclude. There is no prejudice to Petitioner in
`
`allowing this submission, as Patent Owner does not introduce any substantive
`
`change in Mr. Nranian’s opinion. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2015-00015, Paper 7 (November 3,
`
`2014) at 5.
`
`In a different context, the Board has ruled that to meet the “interests of
`
`justice” standard for additional discovery, “more than a ‘mere possibility’ or ‘mere
`
`allegation that something useful [to the proceeding] will be found.’” Apple, Inc. v.
`
`Achates Reference Publishing, Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper No. 18 at 4 (April 3,
`
`2013). In the present matter, Patent Owner does not seek additional discovery, but
`
`notes that admission into evidence of Mr. Nranian’s Second Declaration will be
`
`most definitely be useful to the proceeding, not merely possible.
`
`Similarly, in Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC,
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 (March 5, 2013), the Board stated, also in the
`
`context of additional discovery, that the “interests of justice” standard required a
`
`party to show “beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR20014-00183
`Page 3
`
`

`

`uncovered.” Id. at 6. In the view of the Board, “useful” means “favorable in
`
`substantive value to a contention of the party.” Id. at 7. In the present matter,
`
`Patent Owner does not seek additional discovery, but it is beyond speculation that
`
`Mr. Nranian’s Second Declaration is favorable in substantive value to Patent
`
`Owner’s contentions with respect to its Contingent Motion to Amend.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Board find the Second
`
`Declaration of Michael Nranian to be in substantial compliance with the statute, or,
`
`alternatively, to permit the submission of the attached correction.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
`SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`By: /Timothy M. McCarthy/
`
`
`Timothy M. McCarthy
`Reg. No. 42,855
`CLARK HILL PLC
`150 N. Michigan Ave., 27th Fl.
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`tmccarthy@clarkhill.com
`tel 312-985-5561
`
`John E. Berg
`CLARK HILL PLC
`500 Woodward Ave. Suite 3500
`Detroit, Michigan 48226
`jberg@clarkhill.com
`tel 313-965-8417
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR20014-00183
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`I served the foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to Motion to Exclude on the
`
`following counsel by email on November 12, 2014:
`
`
`John G. Smith
`Reg. No. 33,818
`Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
`1500 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1209
`Email: Autel00183@dbr.com
`
`Zhun Lu
`Reg. No. 53,242
`Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
`222 Delaware Ave., Ste. 1410
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1621
`Email: Autel00183@dbr.com
`
`
`s/Timothy M. McCarthy/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR20014-00183
`Page 5
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AUTEL U.S. INC. and AUTEL INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00183
`
`Patent No. 6,904,796
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN
`
`I, Michael Nranian, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
`
`United States of America that the statements may in my Second Declaration,
`
`executed by me on October 8, 2014, are true and correct.
`
`Executed on November ll, 2014.
`
`
`
`:
`-- I
`Michael MEI-18.11 P.E.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket