`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR 2014-003661
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RENEWED OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`1 Related cases: IPR2014-00420 (Patent 7,370,285) IPR2014-00356 (Patent
`6,606,581) IPR2014-00406 (Patent 7,085,820), IPR2014-00421 (Patent 8,024,668)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`On April 20, 2015, Petitioner Qualtrics, LLC objected to Patent Owner
`
`OpinionLab Inc.’s demonstratives because they (1) impermissibly raised new
`
`arguments and (2) did not contain citations to the record establishing that they do
`
`not present new arguments or evidence. On April 22, upon the Board’s request,
`
`Patent Owner submitted updated demonstratives with certain citations to the record
`
`(and certain deletions to address Petitioner’s objections).
`
`Petitioner has reviewed Patent Owner’s updated demonstratives and found
`
`that they continue to contain new argument. In particular, Petitioner renews its
`
`objections to three demonstrative slides as set forth below:
`
`Slide
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Slide
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for IPR2014-00420 (’285 Patent)
`and IPR2014-00421 (’668 Patent)
`its objection to the statements “No suggestion
`Petitioner renews
`embodiments could or would be used together” and “Petitioner has
`provided no rationale for combination” because they are new arguments
`that were not previously raised by Patent Owner. (Cf. ’285 Reply at 2
`(citing Chisholm Reply Decl. at ¶¶ 14-15, 20; Shamos Dep. at 222:11–15)
`(discussing rationale for combination).)
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for IPR2014-00366 (’805 Patent),
`IPR 2014-00356 (’581 Patent), and IPR2014-00406 (’820 Patent)
`Petitioner renews its objection to the statement “Petitioner concedes that
`its ‘cited disclosure says nothing about how the resulting survey is
`displayed’” because (1) the quoted statement refers to Patent Owner’s
`cited disclosure, not to Petitioner’s; and (2) it is a new argument that was
`not previously presented by Patent Owner. (Cf. ’805 Reply at 1–3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives for IPR2014-00366 (’805 Patent),
`IPR 2014-00356 (’581 Patent), and IPR2014-00406 (’820 Patent)
`Petitioner renews its objection to the statements regarding CustomerSat’s
`disclosure of a “Pop!Up questionnaire” and “‘Pop!Up’ is a marketing
`term” because they are new arguments that were not previously raised by
`Patent Owner. See CBS Interactive, IPR2013-00033, Paper 118 at 3 (Oct.
`23, 2013) (“If certain testimony previously was not developed, discussed,
`or explained in a party’s papers, it may not be developed, discussed,
`explained, or summarized, for the first time, in the form of demonstrative
`slides at final oral hearing.”).
`
`
`Slide
`
`17
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioner renews its objection 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.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 22, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00366
`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 22, 2015, a copy of:
`
`PETITIONER’S RENEWED 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
