throbber
U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Under Armour Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-000698
`
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PATENT OWNER ADIDAS AG’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits supporting Secondary
`Considerations are Relevant and Admissible ........................................ 1
`
`Dr. Michalson’s Testimony on Secondary Considerations
`should not be Excluded ......................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony is not Irrelevant ............................... 7
`
`Dr. Michalson is Qualified to Testify on
`Commercial Success of the MMF Mobile
`Applications and his Analysis is Reliable................................... 7
`
`Dr. Michalson’s Analysis and Methodology
`regarding Industry Praise are Reliable ...................................... 12
`
`Dr. Michalson’s Testimony is not Improper Lay
`Testimony under FRE 701 ........................................................ 14
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Website Printouts Have Been
`Authenticated and should not be Excluded ......................................... 14
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`Description
`
`Biography of Jonathan D. Olinger
`Declaration of William R. Michalson, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Mark T. Jones, Ph.D.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joseph Paradiso
`MapMyFitness, About Us (last visited November 15, 2015)
`http://about.mapmyfitness.com/about/company-history/
`Running USA, 2014 State of the Sport – Part II: Running Industry
`Report June 15, 2014
`http://www.runningusa.org/2014-running-industry-
`report?returnTo=annual-reports
`Bloomberg, Company Overview of MapMyFitness, Inc. (November
`15, 2015)
`http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?priv
`capId=60835454
`Under Armour, Inc. SEC Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended
`December 31, 2013
`Sterne Agee company Report, “Under Armour Inc.: 2Q15 Preview,”
`MapMyFitness Help and Support, Getting Started, (last visited
`November 19, 2015)
`https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/200118014-
`Getting-started-with-the-app
`MapMyFitness Help and Support, Change Profile Photo, (last visited
`November 19, 2015)
`https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/200117694-
`Change-Profile-Photo
`MapMyFitness Help and Support, How to Save and View Photos
`using the In-App Camera (last visited November 19, 2015)
`https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/200118494-How-
`to-save-and-view-photos-using-the-in-app-camera
`MapMyFitness Help and Support, Where are my Workouts and
`Routes, (last visited November 19, 2015)
`https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/200118224-
`Where-are-my-workouts-and-routes
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`2014
`
`Under Armour Connected Fitness, DOCS, (last visited November 19,
`2015)
`https://developer.underarmour.com/docs
`Under Armour Connected Fitness, Activity Type, (last visited
`November 19, 2015)
`https://developer.underarmour.com/docs/read/v71_Activity_Type
`MapMyFitness, Incorrect Calorie Calculations (last visited November
`16, 2015)
` https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/articles/200118084-
`Incorrect-Calorie-Calculations
`MobiHealthNews, “MapMyFitness Activity Feed Enables Social
`Sharing Across Devices” (Jan. 20, 2014)
`Google, “Mobile App Marketing Insights: How Consumers Really
`Find and Use Your Apps” (May 2015)
`Adobe Digital Index, “Social Intelligence Report” (Q1 2014)
`Running Shoes Guru, The 10 Best Running Apps for Android for
`2015 (December 26, 2014)
`www.runningshoesguru.com/2014/12/the-10-best-running-apps-for-
`android-for-2015
`adidas AG v. Under Armour, Inc. and MapMyFitness, Inc., Case No.
`14-cv-130 (D. Del.) D.I. 170 ¶ 227
`MapMyFitness Help and Support, Mobile App Questions, (last visited
`November 19, 2015)
`https://support.mapmyfitness.com/hc/en-us/categories/200003344-
`Mobile-App-Questions
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Deposition Transcript of Julie Davis, dated March 21, 2016
`(Protective Order Material)
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 1 – Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript
`of Chris Glode, dated July 17, 2015 (Protective Order Material)
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 2 – Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript
`of Scott Laing, dated July 20, 2015 (Protective Order Material)
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 3 – Excerpts from the Deposition Transcript
`of Andrew Page, dated June 12, 2015 (Protective Order Material)
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 4 – Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of
`Robin Thurston, June 30, 2015 (Protective Order Material)
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`2030
`
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 5 – Under Armour, Inc. Q4 2013 Earnings
`Call, dated January 30, 2014
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 6 – Under Armour, Inc. Q1 2014 Earnings
`Call, dated April 24, 2014
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 7 – Under Armour’s (UA) CEO Kevin
`Plank on Q2 2014 Results Earnings Call Transcript
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 8 – Under Armour’s (UA) CEO Kevin
`Plank on Q3 2014 Results Earning Call Transcript
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 9 – Under Armour’s (UA) CEO Kevin
`Plank on Q4 2014 Results Earnings Call Transcript
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 10 – Under Armour’s (UA) CEO Kevin
`Plank on Q1 2015 Results Earnings Call Transcript
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 11 – Under Armour’s (UA) CEO Kevin
`Plank on Q2 2015 Results Earnings Call Transcript
`Davis Deposition Exhibit 12 – Under Armour, Inc. Q3 2015 Earnings
`Call dated October 22, 2015
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Deposition Transcript of Joseph Paradiso, dated April 1, 2016
`(Protective Order Material)
`Paradiso Deposition Exhibit 1 – Excerpts from the Deposition
`Transcript of William Quast, dated July 1, 2015 (Protective Order
`Material)
`September 25, 2015 Email from Maria Vignone to Mitch Stockwell
`April 6, 2016 Email from Brian Ferguson to Trials
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Supplemental Evidence dated December 9,
`2015
`Declaration of Lynne J. Weber, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Jonathan D. Olinger
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`2042
`2043
`
`2044
`2045
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As movant, Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to
`
`the requested relief. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00569, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015). Petitioner has failed to
`
`carry its burden on its motion to exclude, because it has not demonstrated that the
`
`contested Exhibits are inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits supporting Secondary Considerations
`are Relevant and Admissible
`
`In Exhibits 2003 and 2005-2022, Patent Owner presented evidence used to
`
`establish a prima facie case that certain products, including the MapMyFitness
`
`(“MMF”) suite of products embody the claimed invention of the ‘345 patent, that
`
`these products have been commercially successful and received industry praise,
`
`and that there is a nexus between the commercial success and praise of these apps
`
`and the claimed invention of the ‘345 patent.
`
`Petitioner nonetheless argues that the entirety of Exhibits 2003 and 2005-
`
`20221 should be excluded as irrelevant, presumably under FRE 402. Paper 38 at 3-
`
`1 Petitioner also complains that the “Running USA” article cited in the Response as
`
`Exhibit 2006 was not filed or served. Patent Owner submits that this was a clerical
`
`error and requests permission from the Board to file the corrected Exhibit.
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`5. Petitioner’s argument is meritless and squarely contradicted by controlling
`
`authority.
`
`Courts consistently recognize that evidence of secondary considerations,
`
`when present, are invariably relevant to determinations under section 103. Litton
`
`Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 87 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). In
`
`fact, the Federal Circuit has recognized that such evidence is often the most
`
`probative evidence in an obviousness analysis. Id. “Once a prima facie case of
`
`nexus is made the court must consider the evidence adduced on both sides of the
`
`question, with such weight as is warranted.” Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff
`
`Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Knoll Pharm. Co. v.
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 367 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Here, as explained, Patent Owner has provided evidence that the MMF
`
`products embody the claims, thereby establishing a prima facie case that there is a
`
`nexus between the ‘345 patent and the commercial success of the MMF apps. It
`
`Petitioner is not prejudiced because it is clear from Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`Ex. 2003 that Petitioner intended to submit the “Running USA” article.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner has already received a copy of this exhibit as it was
`
`submitted in the co-pending IPR2015-00700 in support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response as Exhibit 2008.
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`cannot legitimately be argued that such evidence fails to be relevant under FRE
`
`402.
`
`Petitioner argues that since it has disputed whether the MMF applications
`
`infringe the Instituted Claims, the Board cannot find that a nexus exists between
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations and the Instituted claims.
`
`Paper 38 at 5.2 Petitioner relies exclusively on a single Board decision for the
`
`proposition that the Board cannot determine infringement in inter partes review,
`
`and therefore cannot evaluate the existence of a nexus between Petitioner’s
`
`products and the ‘345 patent. See Paper 38 at 4 (citing St. Jude Med., Caridology
`
`Div., Inc. v. Bd. Of Regents of the Univ. of Mich., No. IPR2013-00041, 2014 WL
`
`2 In describing its arguments regarding nexus and the weight to be given Patent
`
`Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations, Petitioner suggests that Dr. Jones
`
`concedes that the MMF applications do not “upload the journal entries to a
`
`personal computer.” Paper 38 at 5. This is simply incorrect. Dr. Jones
`
`unambiguously asserts that the “MMF mobile applications for iOS and Android
`
`embody or practice at least claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 20 of the ‘345 patent.” Ex.
`
`2003 at ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner is incorrect to suggest that undisputed evidence
`
`demonstrates that the MMF applications do not practice any of the Instituted
`
`Claims.
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`1783276, at *20 n. 10 (May 1, 2014)). Under Petitioner’s logic, any time a patent
`
`owner sets forth evidence of secondary considerations related to a third-party
`
`product, such evidence is per se irrelevant and cannot be considered by the Board.
`
`However, such a result cannot be correct, as it flies in the face of controlling case
`
`law requiring that a fact finder “must consider the evidence adduced on both sides
`
`of the question” and assign appropriate weight. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1393; see
`
`also TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F3d 1333, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“We have
`
`repeatedly held that evidence of secondary considerations must be considered if
`
`present.”)
`
`In support of its untenable position, Petitioner selectively quotes from cases
`
`that, in proper context, describe the weight to be accorded evidence of secondary
`
`considerations. Petitioner first cites to a footnote in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
`
`Resins & Refractories, Inc. 776 F.2d 281, 306 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985) for the
`
`proposition that, “[f]or secondary considerations to have probative value, the
`
`decision maker must determine whether there is a nexus between the merits of the
`
`claimed invention and the secondary considerations.” Paper 38 at 4. Petitioner
`
`intentionally omits the citation to Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works,
`
`Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1984). There, the Federal Circuit discusses
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. 721 F.2d 1540, 1555 (Fed. Cir.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`1983), wherein the court made clear that evidence of secondary considerations
`
`should always be considered:
`
`The objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., the “indicia” of
`
`Graham may in a given case be entitled to more weight or less,
`
`depending on its nature and its relationship to the merits of the
`
`invention. It may be the most pertinent, probative, and revealing
`
`evidence available
`
`to aid
`
`in reaching a conclusion on
`
`the
`
`obvious/nonobvious issue. It should when present always be
`
`considered as an integral part of the analysis.
`
`The Court in Simmons further stated that “[a] nexus between the merits of the
`
`claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations is required in
`
`order for the evidence to be given substantial weight in an obviousness decision.”
`
`Simmons, 739 F.2d at 1575. Thus, Petitioner relies on an overly narrow
`
`interpretation of the Court’s footnote in Ashland Oil. Instead, a comprehensive
`
`review of the Federal Circuit’s case law demonstrates that evidence of secondary
`
`considerations should be considered and that evidence relating to nexus may
`
`impact the weight of the evidence, but not its underlying relevance to the
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`Petitioner also cites to a single sentence from In re Huai-Huang Kao, 639
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) to support its suggestion that without a nexus,
`
`evidence of secondary considerations is irrelevant. Petitioner ignores that the
`
`sentence preceding its quoted language states that “[f]or objective evidence of
`
`secondary considerations to be accorded substantial weight, its proponent must
`
`establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.”
`
`Id. at 1068 (citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed.Cir.2010))
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, this case further supports the proposition that the nexus
`
`question is not about admissibility, but rather weight accorded to the proffered
`
`evidence.
`
`Finally, Petitioner quotes a portion of a footnote from St. Jude Med.,
`
`Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Mich., No. IPR2013-00041,
`
`2014 WL 1783276, at *20 n.10 (May 1, 2014) to support its argument that Patent
`
`Owner’s proffered evidence is per se irrelevant. Petitioner ignores the remainder
`
`of that footnote, which states that the Board, for purposes of that decision, assumed
`
`but did not decide that the alleged infringer’s product was made using the claimed
`
`process. Accordingly, the Board did not conclude that any evidence was irrelevant
`
`or inadmissible, but rather considered the evidence as a part of its secondary
`
`considerations analysis.
`
`Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, Patent Owner’s proffered evidence
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`of commercial success and praise of the MMF apps is relevant and admissible.
`
`B. Dr. Michalson’s Testimony on Secondary Considerations should
`not be Excluded
`1.
`For the same reasons as discussed above, Petitioner’s argument that Dr.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony is not Irrelevant
`
`Michalson’s declaration testimony in Exhibit 2002 is per se irrelevant because
`
`Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s nexus showing is incorrect.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony on commercial success and industry praise are relevant
`
`and should not be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Michalson is Qualified to Testify on Commercial
`Success of the MMF Mobile Applications and his Analysis is
`Reliable
`
`Petitioner next seeks to exclude Dr. Michalson’s commercial success
`
`testimony (Ex. 2003, ¶¶ 74-81) on the basis that he lacks appropriate qualifications
`
`and simply summarizes available information and documents.
`
`As to qualifications, Petitioner argues that Dr. Michalson’s CV is devoid of
`
`any training in business, marketing, accounting, or product management. Paper 38
`
`at 7. As the Supreme Court itself explained “[i]t might not be surprising in a
`
`particular case, for example, that a claim made by a scientific witness has never
`
`been the subject of peer review, for the particular application at issue may never
`
`previously have interested any scientist.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`137, 151 (1999). Thus, the point is not whether Mr. Michalson has addressed the
`
`legal issue of commercial success (a point few practicing engineers would ever
`
`address), rather it is whether his practical experience as an engineer evaluating
`
`commercialization of products qualifies him to opine on whether a product was
`
`successful or not.
`
`His experience does so. Dr. Michalson’s curriculum vitae sets forth his
`
`extensive employment history. Through this work, Dr. Michalson has obtained
`
`extensive experience with the commercialization of products, a fact he testified to
`
`during his deposition. Ex. 10123 at 9:4-16 (“I have in the past been asked to
`
`provide opinions about technology and likelihood of success of technologies
`
`offered by different companies, both, you know, by entrepreneurial groups and
`
`3 Patent Owner has filed a motion to exclude Exhibit 1012, in part because
`
`Petitioner did not establish that the exhibit is what Petitioner claimed it to be,
`
`namely, a deposition transcript from the underlying litigation. What was filed was
`
`the transcript of Dr. Michalson’s February 5, 2016 deposition in these inter partes
`
`review proceedings. All citations to Exhibit 1012 are to the document as filed. To
`
`the extent the Board grants Patent Owner’s motion to exclude, Patent Owner
`
`requests permission to file a copy of Dr. Michalson’s inter partes review
`
`deposition transcript.
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`also in some of my own endeavors trying to do technical evaluations of companies
`
`longevity. So I certainly have some experience in that area.”) Even when pressed
`
`as to whether he is an expert on commercial success, Dr. Michalson testified “I
`
`think that I have enough knowledge about the field to be able to look at some of
`
`the typical indicators of success and determine if that, you know, at least represents
`
`to me something that is commercially successful.” Id. at 9:18 – 10:3; see also id.
`
`at 10:5-18, 14:2-15:24, 16:2-19, 17:22-19:17. Thus, Petitioner’s suggestion that
`
`Dr. Michalson has not explained how his professional experience permits him to
`
`reach the conclusions he offers has no basis.
`
`Petitioner next suggests that Dr. Michalson’s testimony must be excluded
`
`under FRE 702 because his testimony is unhelpful, is not based on sufficient facts
`
`or data, and because his opinion is not the product of reliable principles and
`
`methods that he applied to the facts presented. Paper 38 at 8-12. All of these
`
`arguments gloss over the actual analysis that Dr. Michalson performed.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s declaration discusses at length the facts and data that he
`
`considered in reaching his conclusion that evidence of commercial success
`
`supports his conclusion that the ‘345 patent is valid. Petitioner suggests that Dr.
`
`Michalson focused on only two pieces of information in reaching his opinion, but
`
`his is simply incorrect. Paper 38 at 10-11. Dr. Michalson pointed to evidence
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`relating to the number of users for the MMF apps, the sale price of MMF to Under
`
`Armour, the size of the market for runners in the United States, trade publications
`
`describing the commercial benefit of UA’s acquisition of MMF, testimony from
`
`Dr. Jones regarding how the MMF apps embody the Instituted Claims, and
`
`industry publications, including statements from MMF employee Chris Glode,
`
`regarding the importance of social media for the success of the MMF applications.
`
`See Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 74-81. The above evidence is exactly the kind of data that a
`
`reliable expert would consider when evaluating commercial success and industry
`
`praise. Moreover, Dr. Michalson does not merely parrot the information
`
`referenced, but explains why, when considered as a whole, this evidence
`
`demonstrates commercial success. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s remaining arguments are not the proper subject of a Daubert
`
`challenge, as Petitioner does not substantively question whether the material Dr.
`
`Michalson considered is proper, but rather merely disagrees with the conclusions
`
`Dr. Michalson draws from these documents. Such arguments go to the weight of
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony, not its admissibility under FRE 702.
`
`When facts are in dispute, experts sometimes reach different
`
`conclusions based on competing versions of the facts. The emphasis
`
`in the amendment on “sufficient facts or data” is not intended to
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`authorize a trial court to exclude an expert’s testimony on the ground
`
`that the court believes one version of the facts and not the other.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note. See also Micro Chemical, Inc. v.
`
`Lextron, Inc. 317 F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A]s the Supreme Court
`
`stated in Daubert: ‘Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence,
`
`and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate
`
`means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’ 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct.
`
`2786.”) For example, Petitioner argues that Dr. Michalson is incorrect to conclude
`
`that the Instituted Claims do not cover social media functions and cites to
`
`testimony from its own expert Dr. Paradiso. Paper 38 at 9-10 (citing Ex. 1011 at ¶
`
`239.) Such a battle of the experts does not demonstrate inadmissibility, but rather
`
`demonstrates that the trier of fact must consider the competing opinions and assign
`
`them the necessary weight. See Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249–50
`
`(5th Cir. 2002) (holding that jury was entitled to hear expert testimony and decide
`
`whether to accept or reject it after considering whether predicate facts on which
`
`expert relied were accurate). Similarly, Petitioner offers absolutely no support for
`
`its suggestion that Dr. Michalson was required to consider the value attributable to
`
`certain assets and the income statements of the target company to render an
`
`opinion on commercial success. Paper 38 at 11. Such unsupported attorney
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`argument does not demonstrate the unreliability or incompleteness of Dr.
`
`Michalson’s analysis.
`
`The admissibility of Dr. Michalson’s testimony is underscored when
`
`contrasted with the analysis performed by Petitioner’s purported expert on
`
`
`
`If her analysis passes
`
`commercial success and industry praise, Ms. Julie Davis.
`
`muster as suggested by Petitioner, then Dr. Michalson’s more fulsome and robust
`
`techniques certainly satisfy Daubert’s requirements.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s testimony makes clear that he has applied reliable principles
`
`to the relevant facts and data and his testimony will undoubtedly assist the trier of
`
`fact in evaluating the existence and importance of commercial success in this case.
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Michalson’s testimony complies with the requirements of FRE
`
`702 and should not be excluded.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s Analysis and Methodology regarding
`Industry Praise are Reliable
`
`Similar to Petitioner’s attacks on Dr. Michalson’s commercial success
`
`analysis, Petitioner’s arguments that Dr. Michalson’s opinions regarding industry
`
`praise (Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 72 and 82-86) must be excluded under FRE 702 are without
`
`merit. Paper 38 at 12-14. As discussed above, Dr. Michalson has explained that
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`the ‘345 patent claims are embodied by MMF social media posts about workout
`
`journal entries that include pictures. Ex. 2002 at ¶ 83. Petitioner also suggests that
`
`Dr. Michalson’s opinion in paragraphs 84 and 85 fail, in that he makes no effort to
`
`establish a nexus for these media and industry mentions. Petitioner seems to
`
`ignore his plain statement that “the praise MMF has received, all of which
`
`highlights features infringed, enabled, implicated, or contributed to by the
`
`Instituted Claims.” Ex. 2002 at ¶ 85. The fact that Petitioner may disagree with
`
`his conclusion does not render his conclusion inadmissible.
`
`Again, Dr. Michalson’s testimony makes clear that he has applied reliable
`
`principles to the relevant facts and data4 and his testimony will undoubtedly assist
`
`the trier of fact in evaluating the existence and important of industry praise in this
`
`case. Accordingly, Dr. Michalson’s testimony complies with the requirements of
`
`FRE 702 and should not be excluded.
`
`
`4 Petitioner’s suggestion that Dr. Michalson did not rely on sufficient evidence
`
`under FRE 702(b) is meritless and appears to be nothing more than a belated, and
`
`consequently waived, concern regarding production of information as routine
`
`discovery. Such an argument is not proper in a motion to exclude.
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Michalson’s Testimony is not Improper Lay Testimony
`under FRE 701
`
`Petitioner attempts to have it both ways, arguing that to the extent Dr.
`
`Michalson’s testimony on secondary considerations is lay testimony, his opinion is
`
`improper under FRE 701 because it is based on scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge. Petitioner has already argued that as a result of a lack of
`
`credentials and improper methodology, Dr. Michalson’s conclusions are not based
`
`on acceptable scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Paper 38 at 7-
`
`14. If the Board agrees with Plaintiffs argument, Dr. Michalson’s testimony must
`
`then qualify as lay opinion testimony under FRE 701.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner’s Website Printouts Have Been Authenticated and
`should not be Excluded
`
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding Exhibits 2007 and Exhibits 2017-2020 also
`
`fail. Petitioner wholly ignores the Supplemental Evidence served on Petitioner on
`
`December 9, 2015. (Ex. 2043). This evidence included a declaration by Dr. Lynne
`
`Weber (Exhibit 2044) and a declaration by Jonathan Olinger (Exhibit 2045). Dr.
`
`Weber testified that exhibit 2020 is a true and correct copy of an article appearing
`
`on the website reflected in that exhibit and that the information therein is regularly
`
`considered by individuals in her industry performing market analysis, market
`
`research, and/or market modeling. Ex. 2044 at ¶¶ 9-10. Similarly, Mr. Olinger
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`testified that Exhibits 2007 and Exhibits 2017-2019 are true and correct copies of
`
`the information available on the websites reflected in those exhibits. Ex. 2045 at
`
`¶¶ 5 and 14-16. Thus, there is ample testimony demonstrating that these website
`
`printouts are authentic under FRE 901(b)(1) and (b)(4). Petitioner has not
`
`identified any evidence to suggest that the information in these exhibits is not
`
`authentic. Accordingly, Exhibits 2007 and Exhibits 2017-2020 should not be
`
`excluded.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,092,345
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER
`
`ADIDAS AG’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served via email on the date below, upon the
`
`following:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anish R. Desai
`Christopher T. Marando
`W. Sutton Ansley
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7103
`anish.desai@weil.com
`christopher.marando@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weilc.om
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`16

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