UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-003661
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Related cases: IPR2014-00356 (Patent 6,606,581), IPR2014-00406 (Patent
`7,085,820), IPR2014-00420 (Patent 7,370,285), IPR2014-00421 (Patent 8,024,668)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-003661
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Related cases: IPR2014-00356 (Patent 6,606,581), IPR2014-00406 (Patent
`7,085,820), IPR2014-00420 (Patent 7,370,285), IPR2014-00421 (Patent 8,024,668)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`Under the Board’s March 10, 2015 Trial Hearing Order (Paper 43),
`
`Petitioner Qualtrics, LLC objects
`
`to Patent Owner OpinionLab
`
`Inc.’s
`
`demonstrative slides for IPR2014-00366 (8,041,805 Patent), IPR 2014-00356
`
`(6,606,581 Patent), and IPR2014-00406 (7,085,820 Patent).
`
`Petitioner objects
`
`to
`
`the demonstratives on
`
`the ground
`
`that
`
`they
`
`impermissibly raise new arguments not previously “raised in a paper.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.70(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). Demonstratives are “not intended to introduce new evidence or to be
`
`presented as additional briefing in the proceeding.” Guangdong Xinbao Electrical
`
`Appliances Holdings Co. v. Adrian Rivera, IPR2014-00042, Paper 44 at 2 (Oct. 27,
`
`2014). Further, the “burden on showing that a demonstrative slide does not present
`
`new argument or new evidence is on the party presenting the slide,” and “it cannot
`
`be made overly cumbersome for the Board and the opposing party to determine
`
`whether something is new.” CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing,
`
`LLC., IPR2013-00033, Paper 118 at 4 (Oct. 23, 2013).
`
` None of Patent Owner’s demonstratives contain citations to the record
`
`establishing that the demonstrative does not present new arguments or evidence.
`
`Thus, it is “overly cumbersome” to determine whether any demonstrative presents
`
`new argument or evidence. Petitioner specifically objects to certain demonstrative
`
`slides as set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for
`IPR2014-00366 (’805 Patent), IPR 2014-00356 (’581 Patent), and
`IPR2014-00406 (’820 Patent)
`Petitioner objects to the statement “Petitioner concedes that its ‘cited
`disclosure says nothing about how the resulting survey is displayed’” on
`the ground that the quoted statement refers to Patent Owner’s cited
`disclosure, not to Petitioner’s.
`
`Petitioner objects to the statements regarding CustomerSat’s disclosure of
`a “Pop!Up questionnaire” and “‘Pop!Up’ is a marketing term” on the
`ground that these are new arguments that were not previously raised by
`Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner objects to the statement “Multiple boxes, buttons, checkboxes,
`etc. on one page makes perfect sense in Chapter 20 … Putting Chapter
`21’s call button and resulting comment form on one page makes no sense”
`on the ground that this is a new argument that was not previously raised
`by Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner objects to the statements “The ‘scrolling’ limitation was not
`considered distinguishing in the Final Office Action” and “Wu’s
`disclosure is unclear in any event” on the grounds that they (1) are wrong;
`and (2) are new and were not previously raised by the Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner objects to the statement “Cannot provide proper motivation to
`combine with every other software program for every purpose” on the
`ground that it is a new argument and was not previously raised by Patent
`Owner.
`
`
`Slide No.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`23
`
`25
`
`34
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s demonstratives to the extent
`
`they contain or rely upon the testimony of Patent owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, that
`
`is the subject of Petitioner’s pending motion to exclude.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`Dated: April 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Robert Steinberg___
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Robert Steinberg
`Reg. No. 33144
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67030
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234
`213.891.8763 (Fax)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the parties’ agreement to electronic service
`
`on August 21, 2014, I certify that on April 20, 2015, a copy of:
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`was served by e-mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel, as follows:
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`Timothy P. Cremen
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Robert Steinberg
`
` Robert Steinberg
`
` Reg. No. 33144
`
` Neil A. Rubin
`
` Reg. No. 67030
`
` Jonathan M. Jackson (admitted pro hac vice)
`
` Philip X. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
`
` Latham & Watkins LLP
`
` 355 South Grand Avenue
`
` Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`
` 213.485.1234
`
` Counsel for Petitioner
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
