UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00192
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0005CP1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner, SAMSUNG
`
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`(“Petitioner”), hereby submits its notice of objections to certain evidence that
`
`Patent Owner, SMARTFLASH LLC, submitted in connection with Patent Owner’s
`
`Response in CBM2014-00192.
`
`Exhibits 2056 and 2057
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2056 and 2057 (Deposition Transcripts of Dr.
`
`Jeffrey Bloom) on several grounds. Petitioner objects to relied-on portions
`
`enumerated below in Exhibits 2056 and 2057 on grounds of relevance (FRE 401
`
`and 402), scope (FRE 611), and foundation (FRE 701).
`
`The following chart lists objections to specific portions in Exhibits 2056 and
`
`2057 and the corresponding grounds for the objections.
`
`Objections to Portions in Exhibit 2056
`
`179:1-20
`
`FRE 401 and 402: This portion is not
`relevant because any insinuated
`infringement1 by a third party company
`
`
`1 To the extent that Patent Owner requested discovery into alleged evidence of non-
`
`infringement and existence of non-infringing alternatives, the Board refused to
`
`authorize Patent Owner to file such motions to compel discovery. See generally,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`193:17-194:8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00192
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0005CP1
`unrelated to the CBM proceedings does
`not make a fact of consequence in
`determining the validity of the patent
`claims at issue here more or less
`probable than it would be without this
`portion.
`
`FRE 611(b): This portion is outside the
`scope of the direct examination because
`the Petitioner did not open the door to
`investigating the business practice of a
`third-party company.
`
`Objections to Portions in Exhibit 2057
`
`FRE 401 and 402: This portion is not
`relevant because any insinuated
`infringement2 by a third-party company
`unrelated to the CBM proceedings does
`not make a fact of consequence in
`determining the validity of patent claims
`at issue here more or less probable than
`it would be without this portion.
`
`FRE 611(b): This portion is outside the
`scope of the direct examination because
`the Petitioner did not open the door to
`investigating the business practice of a
`third-party company.
`
`FRE 701: This portion is inadmissible
`
`
`Patent Owner List of Proposed Motions, Paper 12; Order-Conduct of the
`
`Proceedings, Paper 13.
`
`2 See FN1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`195:5-16
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00192
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0005CP1
`pursuant to FRE 701. Dr. Bloom has
`not been advanced as an expert with
`regard to subscription-based business
`practice of a third-party company. To
`the extent that no foundation has been
`laid with regard to his personal
`knowledge of such business practice,
`the content of this portion is improper
`lay witness opinion.
`
`FRE 401 and 402: This portion is not
`relevant because any insinuated
`infringement3 by a third-party company
`unrelated to the CBM proceedings does
`not make a fact of consequence in
`determining the validity of patent claims
`at issue here more or less probable than
`it would be without this portion.
`
`FRE 611(b): This portion is outside the
`scope of the direct examination because
`the Petitioner did not open the door to
`investigating the business practice of a
`third-party company.
`
`FRE 701: This portion is inadmissible
`pursuant to FRE 701. Dr. Bloom has
`not been advanced as an expert with
`regard to subscription-based business
`practice of a third-party company. To
`the extent that no foundation has been
`laid with regard to his personal
`knowledge of such business practice,
`the content of this portion is improper
`lay witness opinion.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`3 See FN1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00192
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0005CP1
`
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioner objects to portions of Exhibits 2056 and
`
`2057. Petitioner further reserves the right to move to exclude these portions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Thomas A. Rozylowicz/
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz
`Reg. No. 50,620
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on June 8,
`
`2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to
`
`Evidence was provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Email: docket@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
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
