`By:
`George E. Quillin
`Paul S. Hunter
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite
`600 Washington, DC. 20007
`Tel: (202) 672-5300 Fax:
`(202) 672-5399
`gguillin@foley£om
`
`Paper No.
`Date Filed: September 13, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`4826-3750—5557.1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`
`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`In accordance with Bd. R. 42.64, patent owner objects to Exhibit 1012 (Declaration of
`
`A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D.
`
`Directed to the Proposed Substitute Claims) and Exhibit 1013
`
`(Reply Report of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman), because his testimony does not satisfy Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702 relating to expert witnesses or Fed. R. Evid. 701 relating to opinion testimony by lay
`
`witnesses. For example, Dr. Buckman lacks expertise in the relevant field and his testimony
`
`does not measure up to the standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509
`
`US. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US. 137 (1999), and their progeny.
`
`Dr. Buckman does not possess special skill, knowledge, or experience concerning the
`
`particular issue before the Board. See, e. g., Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 166 F. Supp.2d
`
`378 (D. Md. 2001) (“an expert who is a mechanical engineer is not necessarily qualified to
`
`testify as an expert on any issue within the vast field of mechanical engineering”). The Shreve
`
`court excluded the testimony of a mechanical engineering expert on the ground that he had no
`
`professional experience relating to the devices which were at issue in that case. See also Oglesby v.
`
`General Motors Corp. , 190 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 1999) (testimony by mechanical engineer excluded
`
`because the engineer lacked specialized knowledge about the subject of his testimony).
`
`Dr. Buckman has no special skill, knowledge, or experience regarding the video projector
`
`systems that are at issue in this proceeding. He has not designed any such systems, he has not
`
`published about such systems, and he has not consulted for manufacturers of such systems. He
`
`belongs to no professional society focused on video projector technology. Prior to this
`
`4826-3750-5557.1
`
`
`
`proceeding and the related 'IPR2013—001 12 concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334, Dr.
`
`Buckman had never testified about video projector systems or such systems using liquid
`
`crystal materials.
`
`This objection is being timely served within five business days of service of evidence to
`
`which the objection is directed.
`
`
`
`gistration No. 44,787
`ounsel for Patent Owner
`
`4826—3750-5557.1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE was served on counsel of record on September 13, 2013, by
`
`filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy
`
`via commercial overnight courier directed to the counsel of record for the Petitioner at the
`
`following address:
`
`David L. McCombs, Esq.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Dated: September 13, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` sel for Patent Owner
`
`4826—3750-5557.1
`
`
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
