`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00042 (SCM)
`Patent 6,240,376 B1
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS IN
`SUPPORT OF RESPONSE, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS IN
`SUPPORT OF RESPONSE, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner Synopsys, Inc. hereby objects to the exhibits submitted by Patent
`
`
`
`Owner in support of its Response:
`
`Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s submission of exhibits under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42 (“Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”). These rules
`
`require that “exhibit label must be affixed to the lower right corner of the first page
`
`of the exhibit without obscuring information on the first page or, if obscuring is
`
`unavoidable, affixed to a duplicate first page.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Exhibit
`
`labels must include the filing party’s name, a unique exhibit number, the names of
`
`the parties and the trial number. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii). None of the three
`
`exhibits Patent Owner submitted in support of its response bears an exhibit label.
`
`This is all the more problematic because MG 2029 contains 18 discrete
`
`exhibits—none displaying exhibit labels. Adding to the potential confusion, Patent
`
`Owner did not bother to remove exhibit numbers and other identifying information
`
`on the many documents that it has apparently repurposed from multiple district court
`
`litigations. The result is that some exhibits contain a bewildering array of
`
`identifying data. For example, at least one document submitted by Patent Owner
`
`contains five separate page numbers as well as coding from various courts and
`
`government agencies (see MG 2029 at 212).
`
`2
`
`2
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed 18 discrete exhibits into “one” super-exhibit spanning 304
`
`pages. (See MG 2029). The first page of this omnibus submission is inexplicably
`
`designated “Exhibit 2,” an apparent holdover label from a previous district court
`
`submission. The rest of the exhibits inside this super-exhibit are numbered non-
`
`sequentially, jumping from “Exhibit 21” (see MG 2029 at 177-87) to “Exhibit 27”
`
`(see MG 2029 at 188-98) to “Exhibit 30” (see MG 2029 at 199-200). This
`
`submission en masse of 18 exhibits in one document, without exhibit labels, violates
`
`the Board’s requirement that “[e]ach exhibit must have an exhibit label.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(d)(1).
`
`Patent Owner’s manner of filing exhibits invites confusion that will follow
`
`these documents throughout the life of this trial. For instance, the lack of required
`
`exhibit labels may cause difficulties in referencing documents at oral argument.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner objects to all three of Patent Owner’s exhibits in
`
`support of its Response on the ground that they fail to comply with the Board’s rules
`
`governing submission of exhibits.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the exhibits designated MG 2028 and MG 2029 on
`
`the ground that they were not accompanied by a declaration authenticating the
`
`hundreds of pages of documents, from a wide range of sources, that they contain.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response identifies these exhibits as the “declaration[s]” and
`
`associated exhibits of Michael Sapoznikow (MG 2028) and Patrick M. Bible (MG
`
`3
`
`3
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`2029) as filed May 31, 2013 in Case 3:10-cv-00954-MO in the District of Oregon.
`
`(See Response at v.) However, Patent Owner failed to include the actual
`
`declarations (or any declarations) to authenticate the associated exhibits.
`
`In addition, Petitioner objects to the exhibit designated MG 2028 on the
`
`grounds that it is incomplete, irrelevant and constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Petitioner objects to MG 2029, an exhibit containing 18 discrete exhibits and
`
`running 304 pages. To the extent Patent Owner presents it as a single document,
`
`Petitioner objects on the grounds that there is no basis or foundation indicating that
`
`these pages are a single document. Petitioner objects to its authenticity as being
`
`presented as a single exhibit. Petitioner further makes the following particularized
`
`objections to the exhibits contained inside MG 2029.1
`
`MG Page Nos. Exh. No.
`
`46-55
`
`56-60
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Description/Title
`Defendant’s Responses to
`Mentor Graphics Corp.’s
`First Set of Requests for
`Admissions
`
`Declaration of Luc Burgun in
`Support of Defendants’
`Motion to Transfer
`
`Objections
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`
`
`1 For convenience, Petitioner refers here to the page numbers corresponding to
`MG 2029 as marked in the center-bottom of each page. Where there are multiple
`page numbers in the center-bottom of a page, Petitioner refers to the number that
`aligns evenly with “MG 2029.” As to “Exhibit Number” in this table, Petitioner
`refers to the exhibit numbers contained inside MG 2029.
`
`4
`
`4
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`MG Page Nos. Exh. No.
`
`Description/Title
`
`61-68
`
`15
`
`Defendants’ Initial
`Disclosures
`
`69-70
`
`17
`
`EVE: Looking Back on the
`Path Forward
`
`71-170
`
`18
`
`First Amended Complaint for
`Patent Infringement
`
`171-73
`
`174-76
`
`177-87
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Corporate Disclosure
`Statement
`
`LinkedIn profile of Luc
`Burgun
`
`Answer to First Amended
`Complaint for Patent
`Infringement
`
`5
`
`Objections
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation,
`irrelevant
`Inadmissible
`hearsay as it was
`authored by a third
`party; lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation.
`Pleadings are not
`evidence. See
`Pullman Co. v.
`Bullard, 44 F.2d
`347, 348 (5th Cir.
`1930)
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`
`5
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`MG Page Nos. Exh. No.
`
`Description/Title
`
`188-98
`
`27
`
`Memorandum in Support of
`Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment on Defendants’
`Invalidity Defense
`
`199-200
`
`30
`
`Order of Dismissal
`
`204-06
`
`33
`
`Synopsys Acquires EVE
`
`289-304
`
`40
`
`Meeting Verification
`Challenges
`
`
`
`Objections
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation.
`Pleadings are not
`evidence. See
`Pullman.
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`Inadmissible
`hearsay, lack of
`authentication,
`foundation
`
`6
`
`6
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`June 28, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Travis Jensen/
`
`Travis Jensen
`CA Bar No. 259925
`Registration No. 60,087
`tjensen@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON, &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Tel: 650-614-7400
`Fax: 650-614-7401
`
`William H. Wright
`CA Bar No. 161580
`Registration No. 36,312
`wwright@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON, &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel: 213-629-2020
`Fax: 213-612-2499
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`
`Synopsys, Inc.
`
`7
`
`7
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies e-mail service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and
`
`agreement of counsel of a true copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
`
`RESPONSE, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to counsel of record for
`
`Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Christopher L. McKee and Michael S. Cuviello
`
`cmckee@bannerwitcoff.com; mcuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Mentoripr@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Dated: June 28, 2013
`
`By: /s/ Travis Jensen
`
`
`
`
`
` Travis Jensen
`
`8
`
`8
`
`SYNOPSYS 1021 Synopsys v. Mentor, IPR2012-00042
`
`