UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner.
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`_________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 6, 2017
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Before: KEN B. BARRETT, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and JENNIFER S.
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner.
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`_________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 6, 2017
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Before: KEN B. BARRETT, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and JENNIFER S.
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` JOHN W. HARBIN, ESQUIRE
` MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
` 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300
` Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (678) 771-7787
` WALTER TREY LEVIE, ESQUIRE
` MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
` 999 Peachtreet Street, NE, Suite 1300
` Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (404) 645-7728
` GREGORY J. CARLIN, ESQUIRE
` MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
` 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1300
` Atlanta, Georgia 30309
` (404) 645-7705
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` RAYMOND P. NIRO, JR., ESQUIRE
` NIRO, MCANDREWS, DOWELL & GROSSMAN, LLC
` 200 West Madison Street, Suite 2040
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 755-8576
` BRIAN P. LYNCH, PH.D.
` NIRO, MCANDREWS, DOWELL & GROSSMAN, LLC
` 200 West Madison Street, Suite 2040
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` (312) 755-8581
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, July 6,
`2017, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE BARRETT: Good morning, everybody. We are on
`the record in IPR2016-00816 and IPR2016-00826, Graco
`Children's Products v. Kolcraft Enterprises.
` I'm Judge Barrett. Next to me on the bench are
`Judge Bisk and Judge Cocks. And let's start with the
`appearances. Who do we have from Petitioner?
` MR. HARBIN: John Harbin, Your Honors, with
`Meunier, Carlin & Curfman. With me is Trey Levie and Greg
`Carlin, also with the firm. Thank you.
` MR. NIRO: Good morning, Your Honors.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Good morning.
` MR. NIRO: Raymond Niro, Jr., of Niro McAndrews, on
`behalf of the respondent, and with me is Brian Lynch, also of
`Niro McAndrews.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you, Counsel.
` MR. NIRO: Thank you.
` JUDGE BARRETT: All right, we set forth procedure
`for today's trial hearing in our trial order, but I'll go over
`it quickly.
` Each party will have 45 minutes total time. For
`clarity of the transcript, when you refer to any exhibit or
`demonstrative, please clearly indicate for the record the page
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`numbers or the demonstrative numbers.
` Petitioner has the ultimate burden, will go first,
`and you may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent Owner will then
`have an opportunity to present its response, and then
`Petitioner may use any rebuttal time remaining.
` I'll give each counsel a warning when you're
`reaching the end of your time.
` As a reminder, no new evidence or arguments may be
`presented at the oral argument, and in reaching our final
`decision, we will not consider any new arguments or evidence.
` Any questions or concerns?
` MR. HARBIN: Your Honor, we do have a question or
`two, as a preliminary matter.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Okay.
` MR. HARBIN: First, the Patent Owner filed,
`yesterday, a motion to seal. I don't know if the Board will
`set a briefing schedule for that or want us to address it
`today or what Your Honors' preference is.
` We have a motion pending because of their Patent
`Owner designation of documents confidential. We're not
`continuing confidential, but then they filed this motion
`yesterday.
` And the second issue that raises is they filed
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`with -- they're seeking, apparently, to introduce an exhibit
`that's not in the record at this point. We don't object, for
`the record, to this specific exhibit, but if there are other
`documents -- other evidence that Patent Owner tries to
`introduce that's not in the record, we would object.
` So we were wondering how the Board wants to handle
`objections.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Let's not interrupt with
`objections. Please hold it till you have another opportunity
`to speak. And if it -- if you don't have another opportunity,
`then flag it at the end, and we'll come back to it.
` Let's -- I did want to discuss the motion to seal,
`but let's hold that till the end. And in particular, I was
`thinking of your earlier motion to seal.
` So just to be clear, Petitioner has no objection to
`the new -- what I believe is identified as an unredacted
`version of Exhibit 2008?
` MR. HARBIN: That's correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you.
` MR. NIRO: And for the record, Your Honor, that
`exhibit is -- been submitted as 1017. It just wasn't filed.
` The Petitioner references Exhibit 1017, and it's
`designated on their list of exhibits in their reply brief,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`they just didn't file that document. And for the -- Your
`Honors' conveniences, we filed it.
` It's the unredacted declaration with the dates
`included, which I understand Petitioner does not object to,
`nor, really, could they. They've had the document for several
`months.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Okay. Thank you.
` JUDGE COCKS: Mr. Harbin, I have one question for
`you.
` MR. HARBIN: Yes, Your Honor?
` JUDGE COCKS: You mentioned a briefing schedule for
`the motion to seal. Do I understand that you're opposing the
`motion to seal?
` MR. HARBIN: Yes. We would oppose that motion,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE BARRETT: You may proceed when you're ready.
` MR. HARBIN: Thank you, Your Honors. Again John
`Harbin, with Meunier, Carlton & Curfman, for the Petitioner,
`Graco Children's Products, Inc.
` We're here to talk about the single-instituted
`ground: Whether the claim of each of the two design patents
`is obvious over the Chen reference, design patent 494,393.
` Our principal discussion points are -- and by the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`way, You Honor, I apologize, Your Honor, I'll plan on speaking
`principally -- initially 30 minutes and reserving 15 minutes
`for rebuttal. If we go over a little bit, I'll adjust
`accordingly.
` But our principal points are the claimed designs
`are obvious over Chen, and Kolcraft has not contested that.
`Kolcraft relies on argument that the invention claim predates
`the Chen reference. We submit Kolcraft has not met their
`burden, even of production, to antedate Chen.
` And second, looking at the details, Kolcraft has
`not shown conception or reduction to practice before the
`filing date of Chen, which is January 7, 2014. And to the --
`Kolcraft makes an alternative argument that a subsequent
`exhibit -- we'll get to -- that is by their contention dated
`late-January 2004, after Chen, represents reduction to
`practice.
` We submit -- we disagree with that, but we also
`submit that Kolcraft has utterly failed to prove diligence
`during the required period, as we'll talk about.
` First point is Kolcraft does not contest the
`obviousness of the claimed designs over Chen. They focus on
`antedating the reference. I want to talk a little bit about
`-- just briefly review legal principles that we think are key
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`here.
` First, an antedated invention. A party must show
`either an earlier reduction to practice or an earlier
`conception, followed by a diligent reduction to practice.
` In regard to conception, Your Honors, to have
`conceived of an invention, an inventor must have formed, in
`his or her mind, a definite permanent idea of the complete and
`operative invention as it is hereafter to be applied in
`practice.
` The conception by an inventor for the purpose of
`establishing priority cannot be proved by his or her mere
`allegation, nor by his or her unsupported testimony when there
`has been no disclosure to others or embodiment of the
`invention in some clearly-perceptible form, such as drawings
`or model, with sufficient proof of identity and point of time.
` And that applies when there are, as here, two
`inventors who cannot corroborate each other's testimony or
`evidence, and corroboration is required in inter partes
`review.
` Regarding reduction to practice, reduction to
`practice of a three-dimensional design invention requires the
`production of an article embodying the design.
` And to establish reduction to practice, the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`inventor must prove he or she made an embodiment of the
`invention and met all the limitations, and that he or she
`determined that the invention would work for its intended
`purpose.
` And again, like conception, there is a
`corroboration requirement that applies to inventor testimony
`to prove reduction to practice. In regard to diligence in
`reducing to practice, to establish diligence, the basic
`inquiry is whether there was a reasonably continuing activity
`to reduce the invention to practice under the Tyco case.
` The Mahurkar case we cited speaks in terms of there
`substantially -- there needs to be substantially one
`continuing activity.
` And most importantly, a party alleging diligence --
`here, Kolcraft -- must provide, number one, corroboration. So
`the requirement of corroboration exists with the element of
`proving diligence as well as conception and reduction to
`practice. And they must provide corroboration with evidence
`that is specific both as to facts and dates.
` And we think we will show that Kolcraft has not
`even really attempted to provide any evidence of diligence
`that is corroborated, much less evidence that is specific as
`to facts and dates.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` So we submit Kolcraft has not met its burden of
`production to shift the burden back to Graco, but if you find
`the burden has shifted back, we submit the evidence --
`Kolcraft's declarations and the exhibits -- fail to prove
`identity of the claimed design. We'll talk about that in more
`detail with the exhibits, beginning with the 131 declaration.
` They filed it with, you know, a very general
`declaration with even dates blank. They are now offering this
`exhibit to fill in the dates they attribute to each of the
`exhibits that they have introduced. They have not provided
`corroboration of the record to support the inventor's
`testimony that these exhibits were created on those dates.
` But more importantly, the rest of the declaration
`is very terse and very general about what happened. For
`example, Kolcraft never identifies either the dates of
`conception or reduction to practice in the declaration. The
`exhibits attached are never explained in the declaration or
`compared to the claimed design. Kolcraft never shows how the
`inventors formed, in their minds, a definite and permanent
`idea of the complete --
` JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, as far as your first bullet
`point, is that still true given the filing from yesterday?
` MR. HARBIN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` All that does is identify the dates they say each
`of the exhibits was created. It gives a -- instead of just
`saying it was before January 7th, which is what the redacted
`declaration said, it just gives the dates they were created.
` The inventors never say, I conceived of it on this
`date. I reduced it to practice on this date. That's never
`offered in the declaration.
` In regard to corroboration of the testimony --
`really, the entire consideration of their testimony as well --
`it's important that the Board focus not on the similarity of
`general design concepts, but focus on the specific design
`characteristics claimed.
` A design is a unitary thing, and all of its
`portions are material in that they contribute to the
`appearance of what constitutes the design. We submit that
`Kolcraft violates these principles, because they want to talk
`about the general, it's a bowed leg.
` Well, that's not enough. That's a general design
`concept. The two patents at issue, the '970 and the '231
`design patents, are and have to be more detailed and specific
`than that.
` So talking about the exhibits, we submit again they
`will show neither conception nor reduction to practice of what
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`is actually claimed in the two design patents. Exhibits A to
`D contain sketches or images of play yards, and as a matter of
`law therefore, they cannot constitute proof of reduction to
`practice, because you have to, again, create a physical
`embodiment.
` Exhibits E to H also do not show conception or
`reduction to practice. Many of them -- they're not -- none of
`them are complete, and they do not show what is actually
`claimed in the design code.
` And when we get at the end, Kolcraft does not
`provide adequate evidence to demonstrate diligence to a
`reduction to practice.
` Beginning with Exhibit A, this is the first drawing
`they have presented of a general idea of the play yard. On
`the left, it does not show a definite and permanent idea,
`because there are major differences between the legs depicted
`in Exhibit A and the figures of the '970 and '231 patent.
` This is Slide 14, and we depict here Figure 1 of
`each of the patents. And again, this is just a sketch, so it
`cannot constitute reduction to practice.
` One of the two inventors, Mr. Bretschger, Slide 15,
`testified at page 76, lines 8 to 22 of his deposition, that
`the drawings alleged in Exhibit A are bowed -- are not bowed
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`like the legs in the figures of the '231 and '970 patents.
`It's a different bow or curve.
` He also testified -- this is Slide 16, referring to
`page 48, lines -- excuse me, 48, line 24 -- must be 49, line 8
`of his deposition that he testified that the legs shown in the
`drawing, Exhibit A, taper toward each other toward the top,
`that they're closer together at the top than at the bottom of
`the legs. And you can see that, again, looking back at Slide
`14, Exhibit A.
` And that does not appear -- that is different than
`what appears, as Mr. Bretschger admitted, in the two figures
`in Figure 1 of each of the '970 and '231 design patents.
` The other inventor, Mr. Troutman, agreed that the
`design of the legs shown in Exhibit A is not the same as the
`legs shown in the '231 and '970 patents. He said they are
`similar, but there are significant differences.
` He agreed that it appears that at least the legs on
`each side of the short end of the -- each short side of the
`Exhibit A play yard bend toward each other closer at the top
`than the bottom and that the figures in the '970 patent and
`the '231 patent do not depict that.
` Going back to Slide 18, Mr. Troutman agreed -- this
`is pages -- Exhibit 1025, page 59, lines 2 to 10 of his
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`deposition -- he agreed that the legs in Exhibit A are thicker
`than the legs in the '231 and '970 patents.
` And this is Slide 19, referring to page 57, lines 8
`to 10 of Mr. Troutman's deposition. He testified the legs in
`Exhibit A are covered by fabric, and the patents claim exposed
`legs.
` And Kolcraft has contended -- and in the
`institution decision the Board agreed -- that exposed legs is
`a significant factor in differentiation.
` Later in his deposition, Mr. Troutman tried to say,
`well, he was talking about a mesh cover, but this was his
`testimony here.
` Exhibit B to F -- and I can refer to any of these
`if Your Honors wish; I have them in an appendix -- but
`Exhibits B to F also show mere general design concepts. The
`inventors continue to modify the shapes of the legs, resulting
`in legs with different distinct visual impressions.
` Exhibits B to D, which are earlier than Exhibits E
`to F, show legs, in turn, that are substantially different
`than what is shown in Exhibits E to F, which show legs that
`are substantially oval in cross-section.
` Mr. Troutman -- this is Exhibit -- excuse me, Slide
`21 in this regard, page 75, line 24, to page 76, line 6 --
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`testified he could not tell from Exhibit B whether the legs in
`Exhibit B are oval or circular in cross-section, but they're
`clearly not the substantial oval that appears later and that
`Mr. Bretschger testified what they were aiming for.
` This is Slide 22, referring to Mr. Bretschger's
`depo, Exhibit 1024, page 58, lines 15 to 21. Mr. Bretschger
`testified their intention from the beginning was to have
`oval-shaped legs, but they didn't know what shape they wanted.
` JUDGE BARRETT: Counsellor, what shape do you
`contend are the claimed -- the legs of the claimed design?
` MR. HARBIN: Well, it's interesting, Your Honor.
`If we -- and I can put up a bigger version on the -- I don't
`know if we need to, but if you go back to Slide 14, what is
`significant to us is a couple of things.
` Number one, there's no shading between the solid
`lines in the legs in either patent, either the '970 or the
`'231 patent. We contend, our expert testified, and
`Mr. Troutman agreed at deposition that shading generally
`indicates curvature -- the substance, the curvature.
` Here there's an absence of shading, so you don't
`know if the legs are generally cylindrical. They could be --
`from what the limited depictions are, they could be generally
`square or some other shape.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` But what we do see is, with one exception, the legs
`appear to be generally the same width for the length of the
`leg. The exception is if you look at the top figure, which is
`Figure 1 of the '970 patent, it appears to us that the leg on
`the right side, far right, is narrower than the leg on the
`left side.
` And from this perspective, the leg on the right
`side should be -- is closer to the viewer than the leg on the
`left side, yet it appears to be narrower. So that's
`inexplicable to us. But in general, the legs appear to be
`generally the same width.
` So they're clearly not -- what they're clearly not
`is substantially oval, which is what the design work that
`Kolcraft is relying on was aiming at. As we talked about and
`viewed Mr. Bretschger testimony, we'll see even more clearly
`in these later exhibits, that I believe is the ones they're
`relying on for conception and reduction to practice, the legs
`are substantially oval in cross-section.
` And this is Exhibit G, which the inventor,
`Mr. Troutman, testified is his instructions on this early
`prototype, which Kolcraft has attributed a date to this. They
`claim this was created December 12, 2003. They put no
`evidence in the record to corroborate that date or any of the
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`earlier dates we'll go over later.
` What's significant about this -- now, this does not
`illustrate the shape of the legs cross-section. It does not
`show all views, but it is clear that the legs appear to be
`substantially oval, and that's what they were intending.
` What they did -- you see, we blew up Step 8 here.
`And this is Slide 23 referring to Exhibit 2008, which is
`Exhibit G. We blew up Step 8.
` It talks about the cover. The cover is what --
`they testified the foam caps they put over tubular legs
`underneath that, to reflect, as it says, we desire an oval
`tube for the legs. So they're to depict what the intended
`appearance is going to be.
` So we submit Exhibit G does not show an article
`embodying all the limitations of the actual design patents,
`because the legs are very different. Moreover, we submit it's
`our understanding that Kolcraft is contending this is the
`first reduction to practice. We submit that it is not.
` First, for the reason that it doesn't actually
`reduce to practice what is shown in the design patents.
`Second, it is not a complete article embodying -- even if you
`disregard that -- embodying the invention.
` This is another page of Exhibit G, the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`instructions, where it says, this is a prototype not intended
`for production. Very fragile. Needs to be reinforced to
`stand up. They refer to guidewires and foot material and the
`solid floor they're using. They're not intended for
`production.
` JUDGE BARRETT: So it's your understanding then
`that reduction to practice of a design patent requires a
`production-ready embodiment?
` MR. HARBIN: Not necessarily a production-ready,
`but it needs to be closer than what this is.
` JUDGE COCKS: Well, Counsel, what are you asking us
`to infer from the highlighted portions there? It's not
`intended for production, but that is not necessarily a
`requirement. And very fragile, what should I take from that?
` MR. HARBIN: It's the degree of which this was not
`intended for production. They weren't -- even if you
`disregard the differences between the legs shown in Exhibit G
`and the patents, it's not an actual reduction to practice yet.
` They also -- they didn't have a way to attach the
`legs. Here's Mr. Bretschger -- we're looking at Slide 25 now,
`which is Bretschger's deposition, Exhibit 1024, page 67, lines
`3 to 8.
` Mr. Bretschger said -- he's referring to Exhibit G
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`in this testimony -- they -- it's referring him to that quote
`on the page, that Step 8 we were talking about:
` We desire an oval tube for the legs, but you hadn't
`figured out how to accomplish having oval tubes for the legs?
` And he said, yes. So it needs to be something that
`is an actual prototype fit for the purpose intended. They
`don't have that here. They actually -- what they did is they
`wrapped mesh around the legs, so the legs were covered with
`the mesh, and then taped them on in this stage.
` The last exhibit that the Patent Owner relies on is
`this Exhibit H, which is a group of five photographs. Again,
`the Patent Owner -- the inventors claim that these photographs
`were created from January 26 to 30, 2004. That is after,
`roughly two to three weeks after, the filing of the Chen
`reference, which is January 7, 2004.
` These do not show, again, either a complete
`conception or reduction to practice. This does not have all
`the views shown in the patent.
` Moreover, again, what you can see is the legs
`appear to be, as they intended, substantially oval. So the
`proportions of the legs do no correspond to those shown in the
`patents.
` So we submit even that's not either a conception or
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`reduction to practice. But if the Board finds there was a
`conception and that this Exhibit H, which postdates Chen,
`constitutes a reduction to practice, Kolcraft, the Patent
`Owner, has not proven diligence between -- you know, prior to
`the date of Chen through the date of conception of those
`photographs.
` Kolcraft relies on the inventors' testimony to
`prove diligence, which, as a matter of law, is insufficient.
`More -- equally important, even the testimony they have is
`void of any specific facts as to what happened in the interim,
`or the dates it happened. There's no detail at all in Patent
`Owner's response or in the declaration.
` Here is an example of the -- this is Slide 28 from
`Exhibit 2008, the declaration, paragraph 7 -- they just make a
`conclusory broad statement: We diligently worked on.
` Several cases have held this kind of broad general
`statement is not sufficient. We cited the Gould case, which
`the inventor's wife gave testimony. Her testimony was much
`more detailed than this.
` She said the inventor -- it was a laser device --
`the inventor, who was also going to grad school, she said
`worked three to four days a week on the invention and looked
`at books and this and that.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` In Gould, the Court said even that was not
`sufficient. The evidence offered by Kolcraft is -- the Patent
`Owner -- does not even approach that.
` Also, it's clear that work continued on this
`prototype well after the date of these photographs,
`January 26th to 30, 2004, and Mr. Bretschger testified that
`the reduction to practice and the diligence continued after
`that date. And this is a reference -- Slide 29 is a reference
`to his testimony in Exhibit 24, page 74, lines 3 to 16.
` So I think we submit you can stop at the utter lack
`of evidence in the record in Kolcraft's response about, you
`know, supporting their general claim of exercising diligence.
` But looking beyond -- behind that, I asked one of
`the inventors, Mr. Troutman -- who was the principal one who
`worked on this invention. Mr. Bretschger was his supervisor,
`two levels up. And this is Exhibit 1025, the Troutman
`deposition, page 36, lines 5 to 10 on Slide 30.
` We're referring to two dates. The date of
`September 16, I cited that because the plaintiff -- the Patent
`Owner claims that Exhibit A, that first drawing, was created
`September 11. They claim Exhibit B was created in the period
`September 11 to 16, 2003. Again, these dates are without any
`independent corroboration in the record.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` And then Exhibits C and D, they claim, are admitted
`October 24, 2003. And these dates are in the unredacted
`declaration they're offering now.
` So I asked Mr. Troutman, what specific work did you
`do on the play yard project between September 16 and October
`24, that roughly five-week period? He could not tell me
`anything. Looking at Slide 31, an excerpt of the Troutman
`deposition, Exhibit 1025, page 37, lines 17 to 25.
` The next exhibit, Exhibit E, the inventors claim
`was created November 25, 2003. I asked Mr. Troutman, can you
`tell me any work you did on the play yard project between that
`roughly month between October 24, the date of Exhibit C and D,
`and the November 25 date, which is Exhibit E? He could not
`tell me anything.
` I asked him -- and this is Slide 32 referring to
`his deposition at page -- Troutman's deposition, page 38,
`lines 10 to 16 -- about the period between -- roughly, you
`know, a two-week period between November 25, 2003, and
`December 12, 2003, the latter being the date they claim
`Exhibit G was created. He could not tell me anything.
` Then I asked him about the dates, the six-week
`date, between Exhibit G, which they say was December 12, 2003,
`and the paragraphs in Exhibit H, which they say were created
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`January 26 to 30, 2004, and he started testifying about work
`-- what I would have done.
` And what he says is, I would have communicated with
`the vendor to have my ideas brought to fruition. Here this is
`Slide 33 referring to -- I'm paraphrasing -- page 42, lines 10
`to 22, of Mr. Troutman's deposition.
` Then I asked him, can you identify any specific
`instructions you gave to the entity creating that prototype in
`those six weeks between December 12 and January 26, such as
`what specific change to make? He said he would just be
`speculating.
` Moreover, Your Honors, as courts have recognized,
`these days, you know, this work is documented in e-mails, et
`cetera. This vendor that was making the prototype is based in
`China. Mr. Troutman testified there were e-mails reflecting
`the work. They put none of that in the record. They had the
`opportunity to. Patent Owner had the burden to put all those
`kind of specific facts and dates, and they produced none of
`it.
` JUDGE BARRETT: You have about five more minutes of
`your original 30.
` Before you leave the podium, I'd like to get your
`thoughts on Exhibits E and F of the declaration. And
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00816 (Patent D604,970 S)
`Case IPR2016-00826 (Patent D616,231 S)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`assuming, for the sake of argument, that the dates and there's
`corroboration, why do these exhibits not evidence a reduction
`to practice?
` MR. HARBIN: Two reasons, Your Honor.
` First, this is not a full depiction of the -- this
`is only one shot of one perspective of the frame of the play
`yard.
` Second, we think it's cr
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
