IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________________________ EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION, ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA Petitioners v. CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC Patent Owner ___________________________ Case IPR2014-00788 Patent 6,738,155 ___________________________ PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Filed on behalf of CTP Innovations, LLC By: W. Edward Ramage (Lead Counsel) Reg No. 50,810 Samuel F. Miller (Back-up Counsel) (pending pro hac vice admission) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. Baker Donelson Center 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Tel: (615) 726-5771 Fax: (615) 744-5771 Email: [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. ii I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 3 A. Mr. Suetens’ Declaration Should Be Excluded. ................................... 3 B. The Apogee Reference Should Be Excluded. ....................................... 8 III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................... 155 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE (S) In re Cronyn , 890 F.2d 1158, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .................................................................. 9 CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................. 10, 11 Ex parte Research and Manufacturing Co., Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1657, 1989 Pat. App. LEXIS 2 ...................................... 11 Carolina Enters., Inc. v. Coleco Indus., Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 479 (D.N.J. 1981) ......................................................................... 12 Nordock Inc. v. Sys. Inc , No. 11-C-118, 2013 WL 989864 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2013) ............................. 13 Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc. , No. 03-8749, 2006 WL 6855371 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) ............................. 13 STATUTES 17 U.S.C. § 410 ........................................................................................................ 12 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ............................................................................................. 11, 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ....................................................................................................... 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) ..............................................................................................1, 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i) .......................................................................................... 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ................................................................................................ 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) ................................................................................................ 2 ii 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .................................................................................................... 2 Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ..............................................................................8, 13 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ..................................................................................13 Federal Rule of Evidence 602 .................................................................................... 8 Federal Rule of Evidence 802 ..................................................................................13 Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) ............................................................................... 8 Federal Rule of Evidence 901 .................................................................................... 8 MPEP § 2128(II)(A) ................................................................................................ 10 MPEP § 2128(II)(B)................................................................................................. 10 Nimmer on Copyright ............................................................................................... 12 iii I. INTRODUCTION CTP Innovations, LLC (“Patent Owner”), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64, moves to exclude the following exhibits from the record in this proceeding: (1) the Declaration of Johan Suetens and attachments (Exhibit 1022), and (2) the AGFA Apogee: The PDF-based Production System brochure (“Apogee”) (Ex. 1007 and Attachment A to Exhibit 1022). Petitioners filed the Declaration of Johan Suetens and the Apogee reference with this proceeding’s original petition. Petitioners filed the Suetens Declaration to establish that the Apogee reference was published prior to the subject patent’s earliest effective filing date. See Suetens Decl. (Ex. 1022), at ¶ 6. Petitioners rely upon the Apogee reference to support all of their obviousness assertions. The Board entered its decisions to institute this proceeding on November 28, 2014. Normally, a patent owner would have had to file an objection to the aforementioned exhibits within ten (10) days of entry of the institution decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). However, on the face of the Suetens Declaration and without the benefit of his deposition, there did not appear to be a viable objection to be made. The grounds to object to these exhibits only became known through the long-delayed and recent deposition of Mr. Suetens on March 26, 2015. Mr. Suetens’ deposition testimony reveals that he completely lacks any personal knowledge of the distribution and public accessibility of the Apogee reference 1 during the relevant time. Indeed, he testified that he has no knowledge of when a member of the public first or actually received a copy of the Apogee reference or when or if the Apogee reference was made available to anyone outside of Agfa and its subsidiaries. Mr. Suetens’ testimony is directly contrary to the allegations made in his declaration. Under analogous circumstances, when a party seeks relief outside the limitations of the normally applicable rules, the Board applies an “in the interest of justice” standard. See, e.g. , 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i) (motion for additional discovery); id. § 42.24(a)(2) (motion to waive page limits); id. § 42.123(b) (motions to submit supplemental information more than one month after institution date); id. § 42.5(c)(3) (excusal of late action in general). The Board may waive or suspend a requirement under part 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. Id. § 42.5(b). Patent Owner submits that the waiver or suspension of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)’s requirements is in the interests of justice under the present circumstances. It was only through the recent deposition testimony of Mr. Suetens that the basis for excluding some or all of his declaration, and, as a result, the Apogee reference, became known. Patent Owner requested Mr. Suetens’ deposition shortly after the initial conference call in this proceeding in December 2014, and his deposition was originally scheduled by agreement for February 18, 2 2015. See Notice of Deposition of Johan Suetens (Paper _). Subsequently, Mr. Suetens became unavailable, and Petitioners made him available for deposition on March 26, 2015. See Ex. 2016 Patent Owner has filed this motion within ten (10) days of the deposition and one day after receiving the deposition transcript. Patent Owner could not have discovered the declaration’s defects except through the deposition. Further, a determination on whether the Apogee reference should be excluded may be dispositive of this matter because the Apogee reference is a critical element in every instituted ground for rejection. II. ARGUMENT A. Mr. Suetens’ Declaration Should Be Excluded. Some or all of Mr. Suetens’ declaration (Ex. 1022), and attachments thereto, should be excluded because statements made in the declaration are not accurate and were made without Mr. Suetens’ personal knowledge. Petitioners filed the Suetens Declaration to establish that the Apogee reference was publically available prior to the earliest effective filing date of the subject patent. See Suetens Decl. (Ex. 1022), at ¶ 6. In his declaration, Mr. Suetens makes several affirmative statements regarding the Apogee reference’s distribution and availability. He states that Apogee was distributed shortly after the press briefing of March 17, 1998. Id. at ¶ 7. He states that the Apogee 3 reference was available shortly after that briefing in printed and electronic form and was world-wide distributed through the Agfa sales departments. Id. at ¶ 8. He states that it was available at several seminars, exhibitions and demos of an undefined class of Apogee products to the public. Id. at ¶ 9. He states that the Agfa marketing-communications department made the Apogee reference available to the public no later than the press briefing of May 28, 1998, and possibly as early as the press briefing of March 17, 1998, as an electronic PDF-file for downloading to the public at the website www.agfahome.com. Id. at ¶ 11. He