throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 66
`Date Entered: July 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Bradium Technologies, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION ON PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`On March 24, 2017 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 44 (“PO
`Mot. to Exclude”). On March 31, 2017 Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Paper 46 (“Pet. Opp. to PO Mot. To Exclude”). On
`April 7, 2017, Patent Owner filed a public version and a confidential version of its
`Reply (Papers 55 and 56, respectively).
` In its Motion, Patent Owner moved to exclude the following evidence:
`Exhibit 1015 (a Linked In profile of inventor Isaac Levanon), Exhibit 1017
`(Declaration of co-inventor Yonatan Lavi (“Lavi Decl.”)), Exhibit 1020 (Fujitisu
`Stylistic Technical Reference Guide), Exhibit 1022 (NGA Office of GEOINT
`Sciences “The Universal Grid System”), Exhibit 1023 (Wayback Machine
`FXT1:3dx Texture Compression), Exhibit 1027 (Bing Maps Preview), Exhibit
`1028 (System Requirements Windows 8.1), Exhibit 1029 (Compaq home and
`office computing), Exhibit 1030 (Microsoft TerraServer: A Spatial Data
`Warehouse), Exhibit 1031 (Intel Atom Microprocessor Quick Reference Guide),
`and redirect testimony of Dr. William R. Michalson in Exhibit 2078 (Deposition
`Transcript of Dr. Michalson (“Michalson Tr.”)).
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is moot as to all objected-to Exhibits
`other than Exhibit 1017, as our Final Written Decision does not reference any of
`the Exhibits that are the subject of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1017, the Declaration of co-inventor
`Yonatan Lavi because Petitioner did not make Mr. Lavi available for cross-
`examination. PO Mot. to Exclude 2–7. Patent Owner states that on February 9,
`2017 shortly after receiving the Petitioner Reply on Feb. 6, 2017, Patent Owner
`requested Petitioner produce Mr. Lavi in the United States for deposition on March
`2, 2017. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner states that it corresponded with Petitioner on
`February 13, 2017 and on February 14, 2017, served Notice of Deposition to occur
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`on March 2, 2017 at the offices of Patent Owner’s counsel. Id. at 3. Patent Owner
`states that on February 28, 2017 Petitioner notified Patent Owner that it would
`need to request the Board to submit a Letter of Request to the Israel Central
`Authority under the Hague Convention, a process that would extend the deposition
`past the hearing date of this proceeding. Id. Mr. Lavi did not appear for
`deposition.
`Petitioner responds that in related district court litigation, Patent Owner did
`not identify Mr. Lavi as a person with knowledge of facts relevant to the case in its
`initial disclosures under F .R. Civ. P. 26. Pet. Opp. to PO Mot. to Exclude 1–2.
`Petitioner also states that Patent Owner informed the district court judge that it has
`no relationship with Mr. Lavi, so Petitioner located co-inventor Lavi in Israel and
`obtained the declaration that is now the subject of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude. Id. at 2. Petitioner states that after it filed and served Mr. Lavi’s
`declaration, Patent Owner threatened retaliation against Mr. Lavi for breaching
`undisclosed confidential obligations to 3DVU (a company Mr. Levanon
`purportedly set up to exploit the technology), despite the fact that 3DVU has not
`existed for a number of years. As a result, Mr. Lavi ceased cooperating with
`Petitioner, resulting in the need to invoke Hague Convention provisions. Id. at 3.
`The circumstances in this case are far from clear. Mr. Lavi is a co-inventor.
`We are troubled by the allegation that Patent Owner informed the district court it
`has no relationship with Mr. Lavi, but that Patent Owner now asserts a
`confidentiality relationship exists. We cannot determine whether Mr. Lavi is under
`any obligation of confidentiality, the duration of any such obligation, to whom any
`such duty is owed, and the scope of that obligation, if any such obligation exists.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`Nevertheless, we are able to reach a final decision on the relevant issues in
`this case based on other evidence. Thus, in view of Petitioner’s inability to make
`Mr. Lavi available for cross examination, we exclude Exhibit 1017.
`Patent Owner also moves that we exclude portions of Exhibit 1016, Reply
`Declaration of Dr. William R. Michalson (“Michalson Reply Decl.”) that reference
`the Lavi Declaration. We do not rely on Dr. Michalson’s testimony concerning
`Mr. Lavi’s declaration and find Patent Owner’s motion with respect to Exhibit
`1016 to be moot.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the above it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 2017 is
`GRANTED; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude is DISMISSED as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Chun M. Ng
`Patrick J. McKeever
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`Vinay Sathe
`Evan S. Day
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`CNg@perkinscoie.comBing
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`EDay@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chris Coulson
`Clifford Ulrich
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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