BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2013-00083
`
`In re:
`
`US. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`Personalweb Technologies, LLC & Level 3 Communications
`
`Petitioner:
`
`EMC Corporation & V1\/Iware, Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`David A. F arber and Ronald D. Lachman
`
`For:
`
`IDENTIFYING AND REQUESTING DATA IN NETWORK USING
`IDENTIFIERS WHICH ARE BASED ON CONTENTS OF DATA
`
`>!<
`
`>l<
`
`>!<
`
`>!<
`
`>!<
`
`>14
`
`>l<
`
`>i<
`
`>!<
`
`>l<
`
`>l<
`
`May 30, 2013
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
`DURING A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64gbgg11
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), patent owner PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC objects to the admissibility of the documents identified below
`
`that were submitted by petitioner(s) during the preliminary proceedings, for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1002 (Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor),
`
`1006 (Browne II), 1007 (Moore), 1010 (Banisar), 1012 (Rivest), 1015
`
`(Rabin), 1016 (Manber), 1018 (Berners—Lee), 1026 (ESM), 1027
`
`1
`
`2020057
`
`
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2013-00083
`
`In re:
`
`US. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`Personalweb Technologies, LLC & Level 3 Communications
`
`Petitioner:
`
`EMC Corporation & V1\/Iware, Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`David A. F arber and Ronald D. Lachman
`
`For:
`
`IDENTIFYING AND REQUESTING DATA IN NETWORK USING
`IDENTIFIERS WHICH ARE BASED ON CONTENTS OF DATA
`
`>!<
`
`>l<
`
`>!<
`
`>!<
`
`>!<
`
`>14
`
`>l<
`
`>i<
`
`>!<
`
`>l<
`
`>l<
`
`May 30, 2013
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
`DURING A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64gbgg11
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), patent owner PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC objects to the admissibility of the documents identified below
`
`that were submitted by petitioner(s) during the preliminary proceedings, for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1002 (Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor),
`
`1006 (Browne II), 1007 (Moore), 1010 (Banisar), 1012 (Rivest), 1015
`
`(Rabin), 1016 (Manber), 1018 (Berners—Lee), 1026 (ESM), 1027
`
`1
`
`2020057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2013-00083 (US 6,415,280)
`
`(Williams), and 1028 (Williams) are all objected to because they have
`
`not been authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE)
`
`901. And these documents are not self—authenticating. See also the
`
`reasons regarding non—authentication discussed in Nova/c v. Tucows, Inc,
`
`No. 06—CV-1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269, *17~18
`
`(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).
`
`2. The entire documents of Exhibits 1002 (Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004
`
`(Kantor), 1006 (Browne II), 1007 (Moore), 1010 (Banisar), 1012
`
`(Rivest), 1015 (Rabin), 1016 (Manber), 1018 (Berners—Lee), 1026
`
`(ESM), 1027 (Williams), 1028 (Williams), and all claim charts,
`
`including but not limited to the information relating to dates and alleged
`
`posting information if any, are hearsay under FRE 801 and inadmissible
`
`under FRE 802-807. See also the reasons discussed in St. Clair v.
`
`Johnnyiv Oyster & Shrimp, Inc, 76 F.Supp.2d 773 (SD. Tex. 1999); and
`
`Nova/c v. Tucows, Inc., No. 06—CV~1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 21269, *15—l6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).
`
`3. There is no admissible evidence establishing that any of Exhibits 1002
`
`(Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor), 1006 (Browne II), 1007
`
`(Moore), 1010 (Banisar), 1012 (Rivest), 1015 (Rabin), 1016 (Manber),
`
`2
`
`2020057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2013-00083 (US 6,415,280)
`
`1018 (Berners—Lee), 1026 (ESM), 1027 (Williams), and 1028 (Williams)
`
`was/were sufficiently publicly accessible prior to April 11, 1995 to
`
`qualify as printed publications, and therefore these documents do not
`
`constitute prior art. Petitioner(s) has/have failed to establish that the
`
`printouts at Exhibits 1002 (Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor),
`
`1006 (Browne II), 1007 (Moore), 1010 (Banisar), 1012 (Rivest), 1015
`
`(Rabin), 1016 (Manber), 1018 (Berners~Lee), 1026 (ESM), 1027
`
`(Williams), and 1028 (Williams) accurately depict any alleged
`
`publications/posts allegedly made at any time prior to April 11, 1995.
`
`4. Exhibit 1009 (Clark Declaration) is objected to as lacking foundation,
`
`assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on matters as to
`
`which the witness lacks personal knowledge, conclusory, and containing
`
`testimony concerning documents for which authentication required by
`
`FRE 901 is lacking. For example and without limitation, Dr. Clark has
`
`no personal knowledge regarding whether any of Exhibits 1002
`
`(Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor), 1006 (Browne II), 1007
`
`(Moore), and 1026 (ESM) are authentic and whether any of these
`
`documents qualify as printed publications, and these documents have not
`
`been established as printed publications and have not been authenticated
`
`as required by FRE 901, and thus all statements and testimony by Dr.
`
`2020057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2013-00083 (US 6,415,280)
`
`Clark concerning these documents lacks foundation, assumes facts not in
`
`evidence, and represents improper testimony under FRE 702. Moreover,
`
`all statements by Dr. Clark, and all statements in the claim charts
`
`submitted by petitioner, regarding alleged dates and alleged postings (if
`
`any) of Exhibits 1002 (Browne), 1003 (Langer), 1004 (Kantor), 1006
`
`(Browne II), 1007 (Moore), and 1026 (ESM), and whether these
`
`documents are printed publications and/or qualify as prior art, are
`
`objected to as hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible under FRE
`
`802-807, lack foundation, and represent improper testimony under FRE
`
`702 (e.g., see Ex. 1009 at pages 4-6, 8-9, 19). Moreover, paragraphs 17-
`
`18, 23-24, 30-31, and 39-40 (and the headings following these
`
`paragraphs) in EX. 1009 (Clark Declaration) are objected to as lacking
`
`foundation, conclusory, and not supported by any stated underlying
`
`facts.
`
`These objections have been made within 10 business days from the May 17,
`
`2013 institution of trial.
`
`2020057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2013-00083 (US 6,415,280)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/Jose@_A, Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`Updeep (Mickey) S. Gill
`Reg. No. 37,334
`Counsel for Patent Owner Persona1Web
`
`JAR:caj
`Nixon & Vanderhye, PC
`901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`Telephone: (703) 816-4000
`Facsimile: (703) 816-4100
`
`2020057
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2013-00083 (US 6,415,280)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify service of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Documents Submitted During a Preliminary Proceeding Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(l) to the following lead counsel for petitioner on May 30, 2013 Via email
`
`(pursuant to agreement between the parties):
`
`Peter M. Dichiara
`
`WilmerHale
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`(peter.dichiara@wilrnerha1e.com)
`
`By:
`
`/Joseph A. Rhoa/
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`
`2020057
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
