UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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
`
`
`____________
`
`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
`
`
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
