Filed on behalf of Microsoft Corporation
`
`By: John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT HOLDER PROXYCONN, INC.’S EXHIBITS 2002, 2004
`
`
`
`By: John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT HOLDER PROXYCONN, INC.’S EXHIBITS 2002, 2004
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Pursuant to 37.C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence, petitioner
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) provides the following objections to Exhibits
`
`2002, 2004, which were submitted by Proxyconn, Inc. (“Proxyconn”) with its May
`
`21, 2013 “Patent Owner’s Response.”
`
`Further, Microsoft reserves the right to present further objections to these or
`
`additional Exhibits submitted by Proxyconn, as allowed by the applicable rules or
`
`other authority, including without limitation upon conclusion of the deposition of
`
`Dr. Alon Konchitsky.
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. 2002 (entitled “Declaration of Alon Konchitsky”)
`
`The alleged evidence presented in Exhibit No. 2002 (“Konchitsky
`
`Declaration”) is inadmissible for at least the following reasons, including under the
`
`noted Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”).
`
`The Konchitsky Declaration is inadmissible under FRE 602, 701, 702 and
`
`703. Dr. Konchitsky is not qualified as an expert on the matters on which he
`
`opines. Dr. Konchitsky’s fuller CV (submitted herewith as Microsoft Exhibit
`
`1022) suggests that he may qualify as an expert in various areas of wireless
`
`telecommunications and 3GPP cellular technology, and perhaps discrete time
`
`signal processing. But, nothing indicates that he qualifies as an expert, or even as
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT HOLDER PROXYCONN, INC.’S EXHIBITS 2002, 2004
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, in the fields pertinent to the challenged patents.
`
`Microsoft’s expert Dr. Darrel Long has explained those fields in his two
`
`declarations and in his deposition. Dr. Long’s CV, testimony and declarations
`
`demonstrate his expertise in this field. In contrast, nothing in Dr. Konchitsky’s CV
`
`indicates that he has published or taught or studied or designed, etc. in the fields
`
`pertinent to this patent.
`
`Further, each opinion in the Konchitsky Declaration further is inadmissible
`
`because it lacks the requisite underlying “sufficient facts or data” of FRE 702(b), is
`
`not “the product of reliable principles and methods” under FRE 702(c), does not
`
`result from the reliable application of principles or methods to any related facts
`
`under FRE 702(d), and / or constitutes mere ipse dixit of the alleged expert.
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. 2004 (described by Proxyconn as “Israeli Patent”)
`
`
`To the extent offered for the truth, Exhibit No. 2004 is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 because the underlying content of the document constitutes hearsay.
`
`Exhibit No. 2004 is further inadmissible for lack of authentication.
`
`Exhibit No. 2004 is further inadmissible as an inaccurate copy.
`
`Exhibit No. 2004 is further inadmissible as containing improper attorney
`
`argument.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT HOLDER PROXYCONN, INC.’S EXHIBITS 2002, 2004
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 29, 2013
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John D. Vandenberg/
`John D. Vandenberg
`Registration No. 31,312
`Stephen J. Joncus
`Registration No. 44,809
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT HOLDER PROXYCONN, INC.’S EXHIBITS 2002, 2004
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of Microsoft Corporation’s
`
`Objections To Patent Holder Proxyconn, Inc.’s Exhibits 2002-2004, was served on
`
`the official correspondence address for the U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 shown in
`
`PAIR and the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in this proceeding and in the
`
`concurrent litigation matter:
`
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK
`DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 BONHOMME, SUITE 400
`ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
`
`GENE SCOTT
`PATENT LAW & VENTURE GROUP
`36 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE #110
`IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
`
`MARC A. FENSTER
`ANDREW D. WEISS
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, 12TH FLOOR
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025
`
`
`via EXPRESS MAIL, on May 29, 2013.
`
`
`
`By /John D. Vandenberg/
`
`John D. Vandenberg, Reg. No. 31,312
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 2
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
