throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD.,
`SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC LIGHTING CO., LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.,
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN FLORIDA),
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN CHINA),
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, NATURE’S MARK, RITE AID CORP., SMART
`SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE PRODUCTS CORP.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,429,827
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00938
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Argument .................................................................................... 1
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Exhibits are Belated ........................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Exhibits violate the Federal rules of evidence .................. 4
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Certain Exhibits violate FRE 602, 801, and 802 ................................... 4
`Certain Exhibits violate FRE 401 and 403 ............................................ 5
`
`IV. Excerpts from Dr. Ducharme’s Cross-Examination Testimony Exhibit
`1049 Should be Excluded ...................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`A. Dr. Ducharme’s Cross-Examination Testimony at 8/3, 119: 4-
`13 ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
`Dr. Ducharme’s Cross-Examination Testimony at 8/3,171: 20 –
`25, 172: 1 – 25, 173: 1 – 25, 174: 1 – 16Error! Bookmark not defined.
`Dr. Ducharme’s Cross-Examination Testimony at 8/3, 133: 14
`– 25, 134: 1 – 12, 135, 3 – 10 ................................................................ 6
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., 2:13-cv-270, *9 (E.D.Tx. March 20, 2014) .... 5
`Tank v. Deutche Telekom, AG, et al., 11-c-4619 (N.D.Ill. April 19, 2013) .............. 4
`
`Rules
`
`FRCP 32 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 401 ............................................................................................................ 2, 5, 6
`FRE 403 ............................................................................................................ 2, 5, 6
`FRE 602 ............................................................................................................ 2, 4, 5
`FRE 801 ............................................................................................................ 2, 4, 5
`FRE 802 ............................................................................................................ 2, 4, 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ...................................................................................................2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 1
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 ¶ I ................................................................................. 2
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772, App. D ........................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`I.
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`The Board should exclude inadmissible evidence filed with Petitioner’s
`
`Reply.
`
`
`
`Belated evidence (i.e., new testimony, exhibits) that could have been, but
`
`was not, presented in an earlier filing is barred from consideration by the Patent
`
`Trials and Appeals Board’s Trial Practice Guide. Petitioner relies on new
`
`testimony and exhibits to morph their arguments, once confronted with Patent
`
`Owner’s response. Such new testimony by its expert, Dr. Peter W. Shackle
`
`(“Shackle”) and the additional definitions and third party website information was
`
`equally available to Petitioner in June 2014, when Petitioner filed its petition in
`
`this matter, as it is now, and Petitioner has not alleged otherwise. Further, many of
`
`Petitioner’s new Reply exhibits fail to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence. Patent Owner timely objected to this evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64. Therefore, the Board should exclude the objected to exhibits and objected
`
`to portions of Dr. Shackle’s new declaration testimony.
`
`
`
`Further, the form of a question asked on cross-examination must be
`
`sufficiently clear and specific. FRCP 32(d)(3); 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772, App.
`
`D. However, many of Petitioner’s Counsel’s questions during the deposition of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Alfred A. Ducharme, were not. Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`timely objected, and the Board should exclude responses to the questions on cross-
`
`examination where the question was not sufficiently clear.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY EXHIBITS ARE BELATED
`
`II.
`
`The Trial Practice Guide succinctly and clearly provides that “[a] reply may
`
`
`
`only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition. § 42.23…a new
`
`issue or belatedly present[ed] evidence will not be considered and may be
`
`returned… Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply
`
`include…new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.” 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,767 ¶ I.
`
`
`
`Despite this strict prohibition, Petitioner elected to introduce new testimony
`
`and present new exhibits that could reasonably have been, but were not, included
`
`in an earlier filing, i.e., the Original/Revised Petition(s) or Dr. Shackle’s first
`
`declaration. The list of Petitioner’s Belated Exhibits includes: Exhibit 1047, ¶¶
`
`26-27, 35-38, 50 and 69 (Dr. Peter W. Shackle’s Declaration relying on other
`
`belated Exhibits and/or offering new belated testimony); Exhibit 1048 (George
`
`Mueller’s LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1049 (Alfred Ducharme's LinkedIn profile);
`
`Exhibit 1050 (Ihor Lys' LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1051 (Kevin Dowling’s
`
`LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1052 (Frederick M. Morgan's Equilar Atlas profile);
`
`Exhibit 1053 (Mike Blackwell's LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1054 (Alex Chliwnyj's
`
`LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1055 (Steven Watts’ LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1056
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`(Bethanne Felder's LinkedIn profile); Exhibit 1057 (LaDell Swiden's LinkedIn
`
`profile); Exhibit 1058 (Synonyms for "Varying" from Roget’s A-Z Thesaurus,
`
`Wiley Publishing, 1999); Exhibit 1059 (Definition of "Varying" from The
`
`American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin
`
`Company, 1978); Exhibit 1060 (Definition of "Varying" from Webster’s New
`
`Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes and Noble Publishing, Inc., 2003);
`
`Exhibit 1061 (Definition of “Accessible” from Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
`
`Dictionary, Merriam-Webster
`
`Inc., 1989); Exhibit 1062
`
`(Synonyms
`
`for
`
`“Accessible” from Roget’s A-Z Thesaurus, Wiley Publishing, 1999); and, Exhibit
`
`1063 (Expert Report of A. Ducharme, Docket Entry #111-3 through #113-13, Case
`
`3:09-cv-02495, U.S. District Court of New Jersey).
`
`
`
`For instance, Petitioner’s citation to Dr. Shackle’s experience stated in his
`
`declaration at ¶ 35 – 38, which was not introduced until Petitioner’s Reply, is
`
`belated. Dr. Shackle allegedly had the same experience when he wrote his first
`
`declaration over a year earlier. Likewise, Petitioner has failed to even allege that
`
`the various internet profiles that it belatedly submits now are remotely timely.
`
`Petitioner’s failure to timely submit this evidence has prejudiced Patent Owner’s
`
`ability to offer any arguments regarding the implications of such evidence and/or
`
`what level of weight the Board should accord to such evidence.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Board should follow its strict admonition against belated
`
`evidence and exclude Exhibit 1047 (¶¶ 26-27, 35-38, 50 and 69) and Exhibits
`
`1048-63 for a failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only
`
`respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner
`
`response.”)
`
`III. PETITIONER’S REPLY EXHIBITS VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
`RULES OF EVIDENCE
`
`
`A. Certain Exhibits violate FRE 602, 801, and 802
`
`Patent Owner requests that certain aspects of Peter W. Shackle’s direct
`
`
`
`testimony (Declaration by Dr. Shackle) be excluded. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`seeks to exclude paragraphs 26 and 27 of Exhibit 1047 because they include
`
`hearsay statements and Dr. Shackle offers factual observations without laying a
`
`proper foundation or otherwise demonstrating personal knowledge of the recited
`
`facts, in violation of FRE 602, 702, 703, 801, and 802.
`
`
`
`Paragraphs 26 and 27 reference Exhibits 1048-57 which appear to be
`
`profiles obtained
`
`from
`
`third-party websites
`
`(i.e., LinkedIn.com
`
`and
`
`people.equilar.com) and are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e.,
`
`hearsay without exclusion or exception), namely what experience and education
`
`the persons identified in the profiles have. See Tank v. Deutche Telekom, AG, et
`
`al., 11-c-4619, *3 (N.D.Ill. April 19, 2013) (“LinkedIn reference is hearsay”).
`
`Additionally, Petitioner cannot substantiate the information contained in the
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`underlying exhibits. See Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., 2:13-cv-270, *9
`
`(E.D.Tx. March 20, 2014) (“The Court finds that the LinkedIn Profile relied upon
`
`by CBS is simply not reliable…”). Thus, the underlying exhibits 1048-57, too,
`
`violate FRE 801 and 802.
`
`
`
`Paradoxically, Petitioner strongly objected (Paper 38), on hearsay grounds,
`
`when Patent Owner proffered LinkedIn profiles of Petitioner’s employees (in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s motion to terminate), even though such LinkedIn
`
`Profiles were offered on a different basis than merely the truth of their statements,
`
`only to turn around and belatedly submit numerous internet based profiles (i.e.,
`
`Exhibits 1048-57), which are offered as nothing but hearsay.
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1047 (¶¶ 26, 27) and 1048-57 violate FRE 602, 801,
`
`and 802, and should be excluded from further consideration by the Board.
`
`B. Certain Exhibits violate FRE 401 and 403
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude the following additional exhibits because
`
`
`
`they lack any probative value in violation of FRE 401 and are unduly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner in violation of FRE 403:
`
`• Exhibit 1058 – Synonyms for "Varying" from Roget’s A-Z Thesaurus,
`
`Wiley Publishing, 1999
`
`• Exhibit 1059 – Definition of "Varying" from The American Heritage
`
`Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`• Exhibit 1060 – Definition of "Varying" from Webster’s New Universal
`
`Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes and Noble Publishing, Inc., 2003
`
`
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, both Petitioner (at pg. 9 of the Reply)
`
`and Patent Owner (at pg. 18 of the Response) are applying the Board’s
`
`construction on “varying” given in its Decision. This renders moot any further
`
`arguments regarding the claim construction of the term varying, for the purposes of
`
`this proceeding. Thus, Petitioner’s belatedly proffered Exhibits 1058 – 60 (citing
`
`various definitions of the term “varying”) violate FRE 401 because they are not
`
`relevant to an issue in dispute in these proceedings or the danger of undue
`
`prejudice and unfairness to the Patent outweighs any probative value. Further, any
`
`questionable relevance of these Exhibits is strongly outweighed by the likelihood
`
`of confusing the issues and would likely cause a delay and be a waste of time, in
`
`violation of FRE 403.
`
`
`
`Accordingly Exhibits 1058-60 violate FRE 401 and 403, and should be
`
`excluded from further consideration by the Board.
`
`IV. EXCERPTS FROM DR. DUCHARME’S CROSS-EXAMINATION
`TESTIMONY EXHIBIT 1046 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`
`A. Dr. Ducharme’s Cross-Examination Testimony at 8/3, 133: 14 – 25, 134:
`1 – 12, 135, 3 – 10
`
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel objected to the form of the following:
`
`8/3, 133: 14 Q. What kind of simple user interfaces are
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`15 you aware of that could be used to control this
`16 device or the Chliwnyj device, for example?
`17 MR. BENAVIDES: Objection; form.
`18 THE WITNESS: What kind of
`19 interfaces?
`20 Q. (By Mr. Nelson) Yeah. What -- what are
`21 some -- it says a "simple user interface," is
`22 there one type? Is there many types?
`23 MR. BENAVIDES: Objection; form.
`24 THE WITNESS: There is many types.
`135: 3 Q. So not -- not really any limitation
`4 on -- on the kind. Just something that would
`5 turn it on or off?
`6 MR. BENAVIDES: Objection; form.
`7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I didn't say
`8 it was unlimited. I just said I don't know what
`9 kinds of switches that you could use. A switch
`10 is a switch.
`In its Reply (at page 15), Petitioner cited the above excerpt as support for
`
`
`
`Dr. Ducharme's purported concession that "a switch is a type of user interface" of
`
`Chliwnyj's disclosed "user interface to control parameters of the electronic flame."
`
`Not only do the cited excerpts offer no support for that characterization, but the
`
`testimony at 133:14 - 25, 134:1 - 12, and 135:3 - 10 is inadmissible because the
`
`question (and line of questioning) is ambiguous, argumentative, and misleading.
`
`Petitioner's counsel begins the line of questions by asking "what kind of simple
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`user interfaces are you aware of that could be used." This question is asking the
`
`witness to speculate about his own knowledge of what user interfaces could be
`
`used, in any context, rather than asking what user interfaces are taught within the
`
`context of the reference Chliwnyj, which is the premise upon which the testimony
`
`is cited in the Reply (at page 15). The questions, therefore, lacked a qualifier
`
`sufficient to respond, attempted to move the witness from the context of the
`
`Chliwnyj reference to another unspecified context, and was an attempt to gain an
`
`admission on one point--the disclosure of Chliwnyj, which is different from the
`
`premise of the question. As a result, the line of questioning has low probative
`
`value, and if admitted would result in unfair and undue prejudice to the Patent
`
`Owner. As noted in the record, above, counsel timely objected to this question as
`
`one(s) lacking form. 133:17, 33. 135:6. Therefore, the above cited testimony
`
`should be excluded.
`
`V.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`
`Wherefore, Patent Owner respectfully submits that Exhibit 1047 (¶¶ 26-27,
`
`35-38, and 71), Exhibits 1048-63 and the objected to portion of Dr. Ducharme’s
`
`testimony be excluded from further consideration by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/Theodore F. Shiells/_______
`Theodore F. Shiells
`Reg. No. 31,569
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM P.C.
`Pacific Place Building
`1910 Pacific Avenue - Suite 14000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on August 19, 2015, a copy of the PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE
`
`OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE was served on Lead and Backup Attorneys
`
`for Petitioner, via the consented to method of email to the following email
`
`addresses:
`
`mark.nelson@dentons.com, lissi.mojica@dentons.com,
`
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com, daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com, and
`
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`______/Theodore F. Shiells/________
`
`Theodore F. Shiells
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`10

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