`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00732
`Patent 8,106,748
`____________
`
`
`
`
` PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE DECLARATION OF DR.
`RAFFAELLO D’ANDREA [EXHIBIT 1011]
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent 8,106,748
`U.S. Patent 5,043,646
`French Patent No. 2789765
`Certified Translation of French Patent No. 2789765
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0144994
`Exhibit Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent No. 7,219,861
`U.S. Patent No. 6,751,529
`U.S. Patent No. 7,145,551
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/263479
`Declaration of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea (Attachments
`A-C)
`1011, Att. A U.S. Patent No. 613,809 to Tesla (“Tesla”)
`1011, Att. B U.S. Patent No. 3,101,569 to Giardina (“Giardina”)
`1011, Att. C U.S. Patent No. 8,072,417 (“Jouanet”)
`1011
`Corrected Declaration of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`(corrected)
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`
`Date
`Filed
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`n/a
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`5/6/2014
`2/9/2015
`
`5/6/2014
`2/9/2015
`2/9/2015
`2/9/2015
`Not filed
`
`Not filed
`
`Claim Chart
`Declaration of Deborah Skolaski
`Declaration of James Hopenfeld
`Declaration of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Declaration Signature
`Page, ‘071
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Appendix A, Materials
`Considered by Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea
`Not filed
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Smith Patent
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Potiron Patent, French Not filed
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Translations
`Not filed
`Certification
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Declaration, ‘071
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Lee Patent, ‘071
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Bathiche Patent
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Declaration, ‘748
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Parrot Exhibits 1011
`
`Not filed
`Not filed
`Not filed
`Not filed
`Not filed
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`
`and 1010
`D’Andrea Deposition Exhibit – Lee Patent, ‘748
`Transcript of Dr. Raffaello D’Andrea Deposition
`Declaration of Robert Sturges
`T. Terry email to Board, dated 1/28/2015
`January 22, 2015 Objection Letter
`
`
`
`
`Not filed
`2/11/2015
`2/11/2015
`2/16/2015
`5/27/2015
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`Table of Contents
`I. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................ 1
`
`II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`IMPORTANCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE ............................................. 2
`
`IV. EVIDENCE OF DR. D’ANDREA’S LACK OF SIGNATURE AND LACK
`OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE DECLARATION ................... 4
`
`A. Failure to Answer Two Direct Questions Posed by the Board ....................... 4
`
`B. Petitioners Claim of Original Copies ............................................................ 5
`
`1. Altered Email String .................................................................................. 6
`
`2. Inconsistencies with Dr. D’Andrea’s Standard Practice ............................. 7
`
`3. Curative Statement is Legally Unreliable ................................................... 7
`
`C. Petitioners’ Inconsistent Declarations ........................................................... 8
`
`D. The Missing April 30, 2014 Declaration ....................................................... 8
`
`E. The Nameless Paralegal that Purportedly Made the Clerical Error ................ 9
`
`F. D’Andrea’s Signature ..................................................................................10
`
`G. The Location of the Signature Page .............................................................10
`
`H. Failure to Deny and Failure to Produce ........................................................11
`
`V. EXHIBIT 1011 IS ATTORNEY ARGUMENT, NOT DR. D’ANDREA’S
`DECLARATION. .................................................................................................11
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................14
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`I.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Drone Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter
`
`“Drone Technologies” or “Patent Owner”) moves to exclude the declaration of Dr.
`
`Raffaello D’Andrea [Exhibit 1011] as being inadmissible and not competent
`
`evidence. Drone Technologies became aware of the inadmissibility of Exhibit
`
`1011 on three different occasions and notified the Petitioners accordingly.
`
`First, the lack of signature page for Exhibit 1011 was raised during the
`
`deposition of Dr. D’Andrea. Then, when Drone Technologies received Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s finalized deposition transcript on January 22, 2015, it notified
`
`Petitioners of the issues and the bases for objection in a letter to Petitioners’ lead
`
`counsel. See attached Exhibit 2015. Finally, Drone Technologies became aware
`
`of additional bases for the inadmissibility of Exhibit 1011 when Petitioners filed a
`
`motion to correct Exhibit 1011 on February 9, 2015. Paper No. 14. Patent Owner
`
`objected to the admissibility of Exhibit 1011 on February 16, 2015 in its opposition
`
`to that motion. Paper No. 15.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`When filing the petition in this case, Petitioners submitted a declaration from
`
`Dr. D’Andrea that was not properly signed, as required by rules 42.6, 42.2, 1.68,
`
`and 1.4 of Title 37. When that was discovered during the deposition of Dr.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`D’Andrea, the expert declarant stated that he: (i) did not know whether he signed
`
`the declaration; and (2) could not produce the original signature page. Ex. 2012,
`
`p.71, ll.15-17; p.73, ll.9-10; p.80, ll.9-12.
`
`After this Honorable Board instituted the trial based, in part, on the defective
`
`declaration, Petitioners argued that the lack of a signature resulted from a clerical
`
`error. It did not. In fact, Petitioners’ evidence of an alleged clerical error actually
`
`demonstrates that Exhibit 1011 is fatally defective.
`
`III.
`
`IMPORTANCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE
`
`Rules 42.6, 42.2, 1.68, and 1.4 require: (i) that declarations be signed by the
`
`declarant; and (ii) that the declarant knows and understand the contents of the
`
`declaration so that the declarant can verify the truthfulness of the statements. The
`
`only way the declarant can make that verification is by having knowledge of what
`
`is stated in the declaration. This knowledge must be obtained by reading and
`
`reviewing the declaration to be signed. The integrity of the IPR process depends
`
`upon strict compliance with both the signature and knowledge requirements for
`
`expert declarations submitted to this Honorable Board.
`
`The importance of strict compliance with the signature and knowledge
`
`requirements cannot be overstated. The PTAB does not consider attorney
`
`argument as evidence, it is merely unsupported argument. See In re De Blauwe,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also MPEP 716.01(c) (citing In re Schulze,
`
`346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (the arguments of counsel cannot take the place
`
`of evidence in the record)). On the other hand, this Honorable Board must
`
`consider the proper declaration of an independent expert. See MPEP 716.02(g)
`
`(“The reason for requiring evidence in declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the
`
`assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by
`
`35 U.S.C. 25 and 18 U.S.C. 1001.”). Permitting a publication to substitute for
`
`expert testimony would circumvent the guarantees built into the statute. Ex parte
`
`Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922, 1928 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)).
`
`To preserve these distinctions, a clear demarcation must exist between
`
`attorney argument and expert declarations. That division requires that an expert
`
`sign an evidentiary declaration with full and complete knowledge of its contents—
`
`otherwise, the expert’s signature will fail to verify the truthfulness of the
`
`statements contained in the declaration. In such an instance, this Honorable Board
`
`can no longer rely on the declaration as evidence of record.
`
`The importance of having an expert declaration is reflected in Petitioners’
`
`heavy reliance on Exhibit 1011 in its Petition (Paper No. 1). For example,
`
`Petitioners rely on Exhibit 1011 for: (1) a description of the state of the art (Paper
`
`No. 1 at pp.9-12); (2) an explanation of the meaning of the prior art (id. at pp.18-
`
`25); (3) explaining the teachings of U.S. Patent 8,106,748 (id. at pp.12-14); and (4)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`claim construction (id. at pp.17-18). All of those issues are vitally important to this
`
`Honorable Board’s decision to institute and render a final decision. Indeed, this
`
`Honorable Board cited to and relied upon Exhibit 1011 in its decision to institute
`
`the proceedings. Paper No. 8 at p.12.
`
`IV. EVIDENCE OF DR. D’ANDREA’S LACK OF SIGNATURE AND
`LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE
`DECLARATION
`
`A.
`
`Failure to Answer Two Direct Questions Posed by the Board
`
`During a February 2, 2015 conference call when Petitioners requested
`
`permission to file its Motion to Correct Exhibit 1011, this Honorable Board posed
`
`two simple questions to Petitioners: (1) Where are Dr. D’Andrea’s original
`
`signature pages?; and (2) Did Dr. D’Andrea confirm his declaration during his
`
`deposition? Petitioners have failed to answer either question.
`
`
`
`If a proper declaration was prepared and signed by Dr. D’Andrea, Petitioners
`
`could have easily answered these two questions. Petitioners should have been able
`
`to provide the original signatures as required by Rule 1.4—they have not. If Dr.
`
`D’Andrea had reviewed his declaration before signing it, then he would have been
`
`able to confirm his declaration during his deposition—he could not.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`Regarding the first question, this Honorable Board is thus left with Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s testimony that (1) he did “not have a specific recollection of signing
`
`the declaration,” (2) that “[i]t may be that it never happened,” and (3) that he did
`
`not know where the original signature pages were. Ex. 2012, p.71, ll.15-17; p.73,
`
`ll.9-10; p.80, ll.9-12. As to the second question, Dr. D’Andrea never confirmed or
`
`adopted Exhibit 1011 during redirect examination during his deposition. Id. at
`
`322.
`
`Even if Petitioners were unable to answer the Board’s questions, a simple
`
`explanation should have been provided. Instead, these two questions remain
`
`stubbornly unanswered without explanation.1
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Claim of Original Copies
`
`Dr. D’Andrea’s curative declaration signed on February 9, 2015 states that
`
`what is attached as Attachment A is “a true and correct copy” of his April 30, 2014
`
`1 The failure to answer these questions should be construed against Petitioners
`because they failed to do so previously. Any attempt to answer them at this point
`would prejudice Patent Owner as it would not have a chance to object. Any new
`evidence provided by Petitioners regarding these questions should be considered
`sham evidence that should not be considered. See Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55,
`63 (2d Cir. 2000); Rohrbough v. Wyeth Labs. Inc., 916 F.2d 970, 976 (4th Cir.
`1990); Martin v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 851 F.2d 703, 705 (3d Cir. 1988)
`(holding that contradictory affidavits should be disregarded as “shams” or
`“competing affidavits).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`email (Ex. 1015, ¶ 4) enclosing the executed signature pages. Numerous
`
`inconsistencies suggest that this cannot be the case.
`
`1.
`
`Altered Email String
`
`Petitioners altered the email string that purportedly authenticates the original
`
`signature page sent by Dr. D’Andrea and have not explained why or how the email
`
`was manipulated. Instead, the changes to the email and the reasons for the changes
`
`have been concealed. The alterations include: (i) the “To” and “Cc” fields in Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s 5:33 AM email have been removed (although they are present in the
`
`preceding 6:26 AM email); (ii) the timestamps suggest that Dr. D’Andrea’s 5:33
`
`AM response was sent earlier than the 6:26 AM request of the same day; and (iii)
`
`Dr. D’Andrea apparently has no record of the email, as Attachment A was printed
`
`by Houston-based paralegal, Ms. Skolaski. Id. To date, Petitioners offer no
`
`explanation or clarification on any of these points.2
`
`2 Mr. Hopenfeld’s declaration is no better (Ex. 1014). He also attests to
`attaching “a true and correct copy” of the email in question (id., ¶ 5), but no such
`email is attached.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`2.
`
`Inconsistencies with Dr. D’Andrea’s Standard Practice
`
`When working with hardcopies, Dr. D’Andrea’s standard practice in Zurich
`
`is to use off-white, A4 paper.3 Consistent with his practice, Dr. D’Andrea printed
`
`his curative declaration (Ex. 1015) on off-white, A4-size paper (indicated by the
`
`shading and whiter margins) and initialed each page in the bottom right-hand
`
`corner. Id. If Petitioner contends that the signature page in Ex. 1015 is a copy of
`
`the original (albeit missing) signature page for Ex. 1011, why are there no artifacts
`
`(e.g., off-white body and whiter margins) indicating that it was printed and signed
`
`on Dr. D’Andrea’s off-white, A4 paper? And why are there no initials in the lower
`
`right-hand corner of the petition declaration (Ex. 1011) as there are with his
`
`curative declaration (Ex. 1015)?
`
`3.
`
`Curative Statement is Legally Unreliable
`
`Dr. D’Andrea’s curative declaration submitted to authenticate the original
`
`pages states that “I scanned and emailed my signature pages to Petitioner’s counsel
`
`on or about April 30, 2014” (emphasis added). If the aforementioned altered
`
`email string was in fact an authentic email string, Dr. D’Andrea should have been
`
`able to definitively confirm that April 30, 2014 was the actual date of the email.
`
`Instead, he hedges his bets with “on or about.”
`
`3 When Dr. D’Andrea looked at his petition declaration that was filed on
`standard paper during his deposition, he noted: “It’s just funny to see it in a
`different sized paper and color.” Ex. 2012, p.176, ll.4-5.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`This Honorable Board has previously found that this type of statement to be
`
`legally unreliable. See Handi Quilter, Inc. v. Bernina Int’l AG, IPR2013-00364
`
`(Paper 39 at 13) (“Also, in his statement, Mr. Koerner does not state that he
`
`prepared the document on September 29, 2002. He says he prepared it ‘on or
`
`before September 29, 2002.’ Thus, according to Mr. Koerner, the date appearing
`
`on his document was not necessarily the date the document was created or last
`
`modified.” (citation omitted)). In summary, Dr. D’Andrea’s qualified statement is
`
`legally insufficient to remedy the substantial issues with Exhibit 1011.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners’ Inconsistent Declarations
`
`Ms. Skolaski knew of the missing signature page “in January before Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s deposition.” Ex. 1013, ¶ 6. Mr. Hopenfeld (lead counsel) learned
`
`about it “during” the January 8, 2015 deposition (Ex. 1014, ¶ 6) and Ms. Terry
`
`(backup counsel) told this Board in writing and orally that Petitioner did not know
`
`about the errors until “after Patent Owner sent Petitioner a letter dated January 22,
`
`2015.” Ex. 2014. Beyond these inconsistencies, Petitioners fail to explain why the
`
`issue was not brought to the Board’s attention immediately. After all, the Board
`
`instituted trial based, at least in part, on Dr. D’Andrea’s unsigned declaration.
`
`D. The Missing April 30, 2014 Declaration
`
`Dr. D’Andrea also testified that Ms. Terry typed the declarations while in
`
`Zurich and returned to the U.S. with his “incomplete” declarations on her laptop.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`Ex. 2012, p.67, l.12 – p.69, l.15, and p.293, ll.2-5. While the declarations
`
`remained in her control until filing, Ms. Terry did not offer a declaration as to the
`
`contents of the signed and filed declarations; nor did Petitioners attach the April
`
`30, 2014 version that would permit comparison between what was allegedly signed
`
`and what was filed six days later. Ex. 1011. Importantly, if there are material
`
`differences, then the declaration is inadmissible. See United States v. Mathies, 350
`
`F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1965).
`
`It should also be noted that Dr. D’Andrea’s curative declaration (Ex. 1015)
`
`only attempts to establish that he executed the signature pages. Dr. D’Andrea does
`
`not state that he reviewed the attachment to the April 30, 2014 email or that he
`
`compared that attachment with what was filed. Dr. D’Andrea cannot make these
`
`assertions, because his email acknowledges that he did not “go over the
`
`documents” prior to executing the signature pages. Ex. 1015, Attach. A.
`
`E.
`
`The Nameless Paralegal that Purportedly Made the Clerical
`Error
`
`The Petitioners blame their purported clerical error on an unnamed
`
`paralegal. In an attempt resolve this issue, Patent Owner’s counsel reached out to
`
`Petitioners’ lead counsel requesting the name and contact information of the
`
`unnamed paralegal so that Patent Owner could inquire about the circumstances
`
`surrounding the purported clerical error. Petitioners refused to provide the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`information, protested any attempt by Patent Owner to identify and contact the
`
`unnamed paralegal, and threatened potential repercussions if Patent Owner
`
`contacted the paralegal. Certainly, information from the unnamed paralegal would
`
`have assisted in determining whether or not a clerical error occurred.
`
`F.
`
`D’Andrea’s Signature
`
`Dr. D’Andrea’s April 30, 2014 email explained that he did not “go over the
`
`documents” prior to signing them and that he assumed Petitioners’ counsel would
`
`“personally ensure that the documents are ready to go.” Ex. 1015, Attach. A. This
`
`email establishes that: (i) Dr. D’Andrea did not sign Exhibit 1011, as filed; (ii) Dr.
`
`D’Andrea did not have knowledge of what was in the declaration sent to him on
`
`April 30, 2014; and (iii) that Dr. D’Andrea anticipated that Petitioners’ counsel
`
`would alter the declaration prior to it being filed.
`
`G. The Location of the Signature Page
`
`Even the location of the signature page is consistent with the fact that Dr.
`
`D’Andrea executed a signature page without knowledge of the content of the
`
`declaration and that the declaration was altered after his signature. The signature
`
`page is the first page of Exhibit 1011, located immediately after the cover sheet.
`
`This is an odd location for the signature a page, which typically appears at the end
`
`of the declaration, so that the declarant reads the entire declaration and then signs
`
`it. One benefit to placing the signature page in the front is that it may be treated as
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`an independent document to be attached to whatever declaration is finalized by
`
`counsel without changing the page numbering or requiring a new signature after
`
`alteration.
`
`H.
`
`Failure to Deny and Failure to Produce
`
`Petitioners failed to take even one line in Petitioners’ Reply In Support of
`
`Motion to Correct (Paper No. 17) to deny that Exhibit 1011 was altered after Dr.
`
`D’Andrea provided the executed signature page or to deny that the email string
`
`attached to Dr. D’Andrea’s curative declaration (Ex. 1015) was altered. In
`
`addition, Petitioners failed to provide the declaration sent to Dr. D’Andrea on April
`
`30, 2014 for comparison to Exhibit 1011 and failed to produce the actual true and
`
`original email from Dr. D’Andrea to show what was altered. The failure to
`
`answer these questions and provide the documents should be construed against
`
`Petitioners.
`
`V. EXHIBIT 1011 IS ATTORNEY ARGUMENT, NOT DR.
`D’ANDREA’S DECLARATION.
`
`As discussed above, Exhibit 1011 is an altered declaration that was not
`
`reviewed or signed by the declarant when submitted to the USPTO. A careful
`
`review of Exhibit 1011 further demonstrates that it is merely attorney argument,
`
`rather than an independent expert opinion from Dr. D’Andrea.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`Large portions of Exhibit 1011 may be found verbatim in the petition for
`
`institution of inter partes review of the ’748 patent (Paper No. 1). For example,
`
`paragraph 81 of Exhibit 1011 includes the typographical error, “For substantially
`
`the same reasons that a person or ordinary skill in the art. . .” Ex. 1011 (emphasis
`
`added). The very same typographical error is found on page 23 of the petition.
`
`Paper No. 1 (“For substantially the same reasons a person or ordinary skill in the
`
`art. . .”) (emphasis added). The replication of such a typographical error could not
`
`occur by chance.
`
`This is not the only example of direct copying between Exhibit 1011 and the
`
`petition. In fact, the two documents are largely carbon copies of one another.5 The
`
`most reasonable explanation for this replication is that Exhibit 1011 is not Dr.
`
`D’Andrea’s considered expert opinion, but is rather thinly disguised attorney
`
`argument bearing the false imprimatur of an expert’s signature.
`
`4
`It is not clear whether Exhibit 1011 was copied into the petition, whether the
`petition was copied into Exhibit 1011, or whether the language was copied from an
`earlier document, e.g., an opinion of counsel.
`5
`See, e.g., ¶ 50 of Ex. 1011 (p.13, Paper No. 1); ¶ 56 of Ex. 1011 (pp.13-14 of
`Paper No. 1); ¶ 66 of Ex. 1011 (pp.19-20, Paper No. 1); ¶ 77 of Ex. 1011 (pp.20-21
`of Paper No. 1); ¶ 79 of Ex. 1011 (pp.22-23, Paper No. 1); ¶ 80 of Ex. 1011 (p.23
`of Paper No. 1).
`6
`Exhibit 1011 includes a declaration of 48 pages and a claim chart of 26
`pages. The parallel declaration exhibit in the ‘730 proceeding (Ex. 1010 in the
`‘730 proceeding) is 37 pages with an accompanying claim chart of 21 pages. Dr.
`D’Andrea claims to have completed this monumental task (which included
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`When confronted with a similar dilemma, a federal court appropriately
`
`recognized counsel’s ghost writing of an expert report and struck it from evidence.
`
`Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc., No. 13-11049 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2014). The
`
`court noted that “[t]he prose is indistinguishable down to the punctuation, leading
`
`to only one possible conclusion: the report was ghost-written by [the party’s]
`
`attorneys as a legal brief disguised (thinly) as an expert disclosure.” Id., slip op. at
`
`11. The court reached what it termed the “inescapable” conclusion that the expert
`
`was “nothing more than a ‘highly qualified puppet’ and the opinions in his report
`
`do not reflect his own reasoned views of the case.” Id., slip op. at 12 (citations
`
`omitted). For these reasons, the court struck Mr. Justice’s report under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 702 as not being an expert opinion. Id.
`
`The parallels to the present circumstances with Exhibit 1011 are striking. Dr.
`
`D’Andrea spent merely forty hours reviewing the prior art, the challenged patents,
`
`drafting two expert reports (totaling 85 pages) and two claims charts (totaling 47
`
`pages), and finalizing the same. See supra n.6. The prose in Exhibit 1011 is
`
`“indistinguishable down to the punctuation” from much of the text of the petition.
`
`Just as with the Justice declaration in Numatics, Exhibit 1011 reflects not the
`
`reviewing the patents, their prosecution histories, and the prior art) in 40 hours of
`work. Ex. 2012, p.15, ll.3-7; p.15, ll.10-15. Patent Owner submits that a more
`reasonable explanation is that Dr. D’Andrea reviewed and approved Petitioners’
`counsel’s work product.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`“reasoned views” of Dr. D’Andrea, but rather the legal ghost writing of
`
`Petitioners’ counsel. For this reason, Exhibit 1011 should be excluded as evidence
`
`in the present case.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`The evidence as whole reveals that the Exhibit 1011 is fatally defective and
`
`inadmissible. As filed, Exhibit 1011 was not signed by Dr. D’Andrea. The
`
`declaration sent to Dr. D’Andrea on April 30, 2014 was subsequently altered by
`
`counsel to generate Exhibit 1011. Therefore, the April 30, 2014 signature page
`
`could not have been appropriately appended to Exhibit 1011.
`
`Dr. D’Andrea’s deposition testimony is consistent with the proposition that
`
`he did not know what he signed. Dr. D’Andrea did not have a specific recollection
`
`of signing his declaration, because he did not sign a declaration – only a signature
`
`page. Even if Dr. D’Andrea did sign a signature page to be used with a
`
`Declaration on April 30, 2014, that signature page did not make it into the record.
`
`If the document mailed to Dr. D’Andrea on April 30, 2014 had remained
`
`unaltered by counsel and the proper signature page had been attached, Exhibit
`
`1011 is still ineffective as a declaration. Dr. D’Andrea did not read that document
`
`and, thus, did not have knowledge of its specific content, which violates rule 1.68.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`(Dr. D’Andrea didn’t “go over the documents” prior to signing Ex. 1015, Attach.
`
`A).
`
`Based on the above, Exhibit 1011 should be excluded as evidence in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of Deposit: May 27, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James G. Dilmore /
`Gene Tabachnick; Reg. No. 33,801
`James Dilmore; Reg. No. 51,618
`BECK & THOMAS, P.C.
`Pittsburgh, PA 15216-1808
`(412) 343-9700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Case IPR2014-00732
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on May 27,
`
`2015, a copy of the foregoing document was served by email upon the following:
`
`James E. Hopenfeld (hopenfeld@oshaliang.com)
`Tammy J. Terry (terry@oshaliang.com)
`
`
`
`and via FedEx:
`
`James E. Hopenfeld
`Tammy J. Terry
`Osha Liang LLP
`909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
`Houston, Texas 77010
`
`/James G. Dilmore/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
