Response to Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADIDAS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER ADIDAS AG’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`REPLY WITNESS JOSEPH PARADISO
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – CONTAINS REDACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Response to Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  BECAUSE PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY
`WITH THE BASIC RULES OF MOTION PRACTICE BEFORE
`THE BOARD, PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION SHOULD BE DENIED ................................................... 1 
`III.  RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF DR. JOSEPH PARADISO ...................................... 2 
`A.  Observation #A.1 ................................................................................. 2 
`B.  Observation #A.2 ................................................................................. 3 
`C.  Observation #B.1 ................................................................................. 3 
`D.  Observation #B.2 ................................................................................. 4 
`E.  Observation #B.3 ................................................................................. 4 
`F.  Observation #B.4 ................................................................................. 5 
`G.  Observation #C.1 ................................................................................. 5 
`H.  Observation #D.1 ................................................................................. 6 
`I. 
`Observation #D.2 ................................................................................. 6 
`J. 
`Observation #E.1 ................................................................................. 7 
`K.  Observation #E.2 ................................................................................. 7 
`L.  Observation #E.3 ................................................................................. 7 
`M.  Observation #E.4 ................................................................................. 7 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 8 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`Number
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345 to Ellis et al.
`1002 Docket Report for Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00130-GMS (excerpt)
`1003
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph Paradiso
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,513,532 to Mault et al.
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,321,158 to DeLorme et al.
`Ari T. Adler, A Cost-Effective Portable Telemedicine Kit for Use in
`Developing Countries (May 2000) (M.S. thesis, Massachusetts Institute
`of Technology) (on file with MIT Libraries) (“Telemedicine Kit”)
`1007 U.S. Patent no. 6,790,178 to Mault et al.
`1008 NavTalk™ Cellular Phone/GPS Receiver, Owner’s Manual and
`Reference Guide (January 2000)
`1009
`Toshiba Satellite 2530CDS Product Specifications (February 2000)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,864,870 to Guck et al.
`1011
`Reply Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph Paradiso
`1012
`Transcript of February 5, 2016 deposition of Dr. William Michalson
`MapMyFitness, Inc.’s non-infringement contentions (Excerpt of
`Defendant MapMyFitness, Inc.’s Supplemental Objections and
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 3, 6-12))
`Expert Declaration of Julie Davis
`Biography of Zac Garthe
`Biography of Robert T. Vlasis
`Transcript of October 21-22, 2015 deposition of Dr. William Michalson
`(Part I)
`Transcript of October 21-22, 2015 deposition of Dr. William Michalson
`(Part II)
`Petitioner’s September 9, 2015 Responses to Patent Owner’s
`Objections to Admissibility of Evidence
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. 07-551 (GMS),
`Document 163 (D. Del. June 26, 2009)
`
`
`1006
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Response to Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper 10) and the Notice of Stipulation
`
`I.
`
`
`for Different Dates for Due Dates 4 and 5 Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`33), Petitioner Under Armour, Inc. respectfully submits its responses to Patent
`
`Owner’s motion for observations regarding cross-examination of reply witness Dr.
`
`Joseph Paradiso.
`
`II. BECAUSE PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
`THE BASIC RULES OF MOTION PRACTICE BEFORE THE
`BOARD, PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not complied with the basic rules of motion practice
`
`before the Board; it even failed to request the Board to grant its motion for
`
`observation regarding cross-examination. Motions for observation on cross-
`
`examination are governed by, inter alia, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20 – 42.25 regarding
`
`motion practice.1 See Paper 10 at 4 (“A motion for observation on cross-
`
`examination provides the parties with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention
`
`to relevant cross-examination testimony of a reply witness ….” (emphasis added)
`
`(citing Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`
`
`1 Procedures and requirements for filing other documents, such as exhibits, are
`
`governed by provisions wholly distinct from those governing motions. Compare 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6 with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20 – 42.25.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`2012)), Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(“There are many types of motions that may be filed in a proceeding in addition to
`
`motions to amend. Examples … include … motions for observations on cross-
`
`examination ….”). In particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 states: “Each … motion must
`
`be filed as a separate paper and must include: (1) A statement of the precise relief
`
`requested; and (2) A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including
`
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts,
`
`and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Patent Owner’s motion for
`
`observation utterly fails to meet these requirements. In fact, its motion does not
`
`request any relief, whether that be having the Board grant the motion, consider its
`
`observations, etc. Patent Owner merely submits its observations, identifies
`
`exhibits, and provides procedural background. Under the clearly defined rules, this
`
`is not enough.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board deny Patent
`
`Owner’s motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Joseph Paradiso.
`
`III. RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`DR. JOSEPH PARADISO
`A. Observation #A.1
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 11:15-13:22. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Paradiso’s testimony at least because Patent Owner fails to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`note that the cited testimony refers to specific portions of his report and to specific
`
`portions of Mault (not the entire reference). Patent Owner is also incorrect in
`
`stating that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s conclusions. Finally,
`
`Patent Owner omits material testimony relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at
`
`13:23-14:11, 14:19-15:15.
`
`B. Observation #A.2
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 14:12-19. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Paradiso’s testimony at least because Dr. Paradiso’s
`
`testimony referred to explicit mention of a GPS receiver. Patent Owner is also
`
`incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s conclusion
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Mault discloses a
`
`PDA device including a GPS receiver. Finally, Patent Owner omits material
`
`testimony relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at 13:23-14:11, 14:19-15:15.
`
`C. Observation #B.1
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 16:14-21, 17:10-18:3. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`is incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s
`
`conclusions. Patent Owner also omits material testimony relevant to its
`
`observation. See Ex. 2039 at 15:25-16:11, 16:20-17:9, 18:4-19:2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`D. Observation #B.2
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 20:21-21:10, 21:18-22:7, 22:22-
`
`
`
`24:17,2 75:13-76:3. Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Paradiso’s testimony at
`
`least because Dr. Paradiso does indeed state that he cited to DeLorme regarding
`
`automated adjustments. See Ex. 2039 at 20:21-21:8. Patent Owner
`
`characterization also ignores reference to DeLorme’s abstract. See id. at 75:13-18.
`
`Further, Patent Owner is incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines
`
`Dr. Paradiso’s conclusions. Finally, Patent Owner omits material testimony
`
`relevant to its observation. See id. at 19:20-20:10, 22:14-21, 24:18-25:11, 71:10-
`
`72:1, 75:24-76:12.
`
`E. Observation #B.3
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 22:22-23:17. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`mischaracterizes this cited testimony at least because Dr. Paradiso does not testify
`
`about manual updates to the navigation screen here and because Dr. Paradiso is
`
`being asked about column 16, line 55, through column 17, line 14, of DeLorme.
`
`Patent Owner is also incorrect in stating that the cited testimony is relevant to
`
`
`2 Literally, Patent Owner cites “page 22 line 22 through page 23 line 16 through
`
`page 24 line 17 ….” Paper 44 at 3 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`understands that Patent Owner effectively cites page 22, line 22, through page 24,
`
`line 17.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`Exhibit 1003 at ¶ 35 and Exhibit 1011 at ¶ 189. Further, Patent Owner is incorrect
`
`in stating that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s conclusions. Finally,
`
`Patent Owner omits material testimony relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at
`
`24:19-25:11, 74:24-75:12.
`
`F. Observation #B.4
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 26:1-27:20. Patent Owner is
`
`
`
`incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s conclusions.
`
`Patent Owner also omits material testimony relevant to its observation. See Ex.
`
`2039 at 9:2-19.
`
`G. Observation #C.1
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 29:2-9, 32:16-33:15, 34:6-25,3 36:1-
`
`
`
`20. Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Paradiso’s testimony at least because Dr.
`
`Paradiso discusses a more specific meaning of “creating a new journal.” Patent
`
`Owner is also incorrect in stating that the cited testimony both undermines Dr.
`
`
`3 Although Patent Owner literally cites “Page 34 line 6 through line 35” (Paper 44
`
`at 4 (emphasis added)), page 34 only includes lines 1 through 25. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner understands that Patent Owner is citing page 34, lines 6 through 25.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`Paradiso’s conclusions4 and demonstrates that he did not apply the appropriate
`
`claim construction standard. Finally, Patent Owner omits material testimony
`
`relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at 50:6-25.
`
`H. Observation #D.1
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 38:21-40:20. Patent Owner is
`
`
`
`incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines his conclusions in Exhibit
`
`1011 ¶ 197. Patent Owner also mischaracterizes these conclusions.
`
`Observation #D.2
`
`I.
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 40:24-41:24, 42:10-16. Patent
`
`
`
`Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Paradiso’s testimony at least because the cited
`
`testimony was addressing paragraph 198 of Exhibit 1011, and not Exhibit 1011
`
`generally. Patent Owner is also incorrect in stating that the cited testimony
`
`undermines his conclusions. Finally, Patent Owner omits material testimony
`
`relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at 41:25-42:9.
`
`
`4 It is not entirely clear from the literal reading of Paper 34, pages 4-5, whether
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the cited testimony undermines Dr. Paradiso’s
`
`conclusions, but nevertheless it does not.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`J. Observation #E.1
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 45:11-22, 46:6-21. Patent Owner is
`
`
`
`incorrect in stating that the cited testimony undermines his conclusions,
`
`particularly those in Exhibit 1011, ¶¶ 206-207.
`
`K. Observation #E.2
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 49:3-50:5. Patent Owner is
`
`
`
`incorrect in stating that the cited testimony demonstrates that his conclusion is
`
`unreliable.
`
`L. Observation #E.3
`Patent Owner identifies Exhibit 2039 at 51:1-21. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`mischaracterizes the cited testimony at least because Dr. Paradiso does not provide
`
`a construction of “upload” here. Patent Owner is also incorrect in stating that the
`
`cited testimony undermines his conclusions. Further, Patent Owner
`
`mischaracterizes these conclusions. Finally, Patent owner omits material
`
`testimony relevant to its observation. See Ex. 2039 at 72:2-73:10.
`
`M. Observation #E.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Response to Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. Paradiso
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner’s motion for observations on cross-examination should be
`
`denied at least because Patent Owner failed even to request that the motion be
`
`granted, and thus fails to comply with the Federal Regulations.
`
`
`
`Alternatively, to the extent Patent Owner’s observations are considered by
`
`this Board, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board equally consider these
`
`responses.
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Brian E. Ferguson/
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Christopher T. Marando (Reg. No.67,898)
`W. Sutton Ansley (Reg. No. 67,828)
`Robert R. Vlasis (Pro Hac Vice)
`Zachary C. Garthe (Pro Hac Vice)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`christopher.marando@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`robert.vlasis@weil.com
`zachary.garthe@weil.com
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 20, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY
`
`WITNESS JOSEPH PARADISO was served via electronic mail, upon the
`
`following:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Wab P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Jonathan D. Olinger
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`jolinger@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`/ Timothy J. Andersen / c
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com