iTakeaway: Expert testimony will not be excluded based on arguments that go to the weight of the testimony rather than admissibility.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found all challenged claims (1, 4, 12, 16, 17, and 19-21) of the ’176 Patent unpatentable and denied Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. The ’176 Patent “relates generally to a method and corresponding apparatus for viewing images,” such as creating a virtual pictosphere using conventional three-dimensional graphics.
The Board began with claim construction, stating that claims terms are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. The Board reviewed five claim terms that were previously construed in the Decision to Institute, some which were now contested by Patent Owner. Regarding “full-surround image data,” the Board modified its construction based on part of Patent Owner’s construction, which Petitioner did not dispute. Regarding “projecting the [full-surround] image data onto the p-surface,” the Board clarified its earlier construction, but did not fully accept Patent Owner’s construction. Regarding “view point” and “point of projection,” the Board adopted Patent Owner’s construction.
The Board then addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude certain portions of Patent Owner’s expert declaration that purportedly rely on the consideration of two software applications that are inadmissible because they lack authentication and relevance. Patent Owner responded that it does not seek to admit the software applications themselves, and that its expert only reviewed them as part of his overall review of the technology at issue in the case. The Board was not persuaded that the expert testimony should be excluded, and stated that Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight of the testimony rather than the admissibility.
The Board then turned to the one ground of unpatentability – anticipation by Photo VR. In determining unpatentability, the Board reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments. First, Patent Owner contended that a single image such as the images acquired by the camera disclosed in Photo VR is not full-surround image data as required by the ’176 Patent. However, neither Petitioner nor the Board relied upon the single image for the disclosure of full-surround image data. Patent Owner then argued that the full-surround image data must have a single common view point from which the points P of the visible world are observed, and Photo VR discloses acquiring images from a camera with a moving center of projection. Petitioner disagreed and stated that Photo VR does disclose a single common viewpoint from which the points P are observed, and the Board agreed. Patent Owner also contended that Photo VR’s registered image data are not full-surround image data because the individual images may overlap one another. Petitioner stated that this was not true and pointed to Patent Owner’s expert testimony as support. The Board agreed with Petitioner. Patent Owner then alleged that Photo VR describes specular lighting as important but that Photo VR does not handle specular lighting because the ’176 Patent requires “distortion-free results.” The Board did not agree that the claims require distortion-free results. Finally, Patent Owner argued that Photo VR does not disclose allowing a user to select a direction of view from a view point on the model. However, the Board agreed with Petitioner that this limitation is disclosed several times in Photo VR.
Google Inc. v. Grandeye Ltd., IPR2013-00546
Paper 32: Final Written Decision
Dated: November 25, 2014
Patent: 8,077,176 B2
Before: Jameson Lee, David C. McKone, and Patrick M. Boucher
Written by: McKone
Related Proceedings: IPR2013-00547; IPR2013-00548; View 360 Solutions LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-1352 (N.D.N.Y.); Grandeye Ltd. v. Sentry 360 Security, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-02188 (N.D. Ill.)
