UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`Sipnet EU S.R.O.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`______________
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and TRENTON
`A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`October 25, 2013
`
`
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2046
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits submitted by Sipnet
`
`EU S.R.O. (“Petitioner”) for the following reasons.
`
`1. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1005 (WINS Release) in the Petition is objected to
`
`because it is hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 801 and
`
`inadmissible under FRE 802-807.1 Exhibit 1005 purports to be a printout of
`
`the Wikipedia entry “Windows NT 3.5.” The Board has already found
`
`Wikipedia entries to be “inherently untrustworthy.”2 As a result, Exhibit
`
`
`1 See, e.g., St. Clair v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774-75
`(S.D. Tex. 1999) (“While some look to the Internet as an innovative vehicle for
`communication, the Court continues to warily and wearily view it largely as one
`large catalyst for rumor, innuendo, and misinformation. So as to not mince words,
`the Court reiterates that this so-called Web provides no way of verifying the
`authenticity of the alleged contentions that Plaintiff wishes to rely upon in his
`Response to Defendant's Motion. There is no way Plaintiff can overcome the
`presumption that the information he discovered on the Internet is inherently
`untrustworthy. Anyone can put anything on the Internet. No web-site is monitored
`for accuracy and nothing contained therein is under oath or even subject to
`independent verification absent underlying documentation. Moreover, the Court
`holds no illusions that hackers can adulterate the content on any web-site from any
`location at any time. For these reasons, any evidence procured off the Internet is
`adequate for almost nothing, even under the most liberal interpretation of the
`hearsay exception rules found in FED. R. CIV. P. 807.”) (emphasis in original);
`see also, e.g., Novak v. Tucows, Inc., No. 06-CV1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 21269, *17-18 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).
`
`2 See, e.g., Ex parte Bailey, No. 2010-010310, Application No. 11,168,650, 2013
`Pat. App. LEXIS 2470 (Pat. App. Apr. 25, 2013) (“Wikipedia has limited
`probative value in view of its dubious reliability. Among other things, Wikipedia
`is not peer reviewed, the authors are unknown, and apparently anyone can
`contribute.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2046
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`1005 is inadmissible hearsay that does not fall under any hearsay exception.
`
`2. Exhibit 1005 is objected to because it has not been authenticated as required
`
`by FRE 901. As stated above, Exhibit 1005 purports to be a Wikipedia entry
`
`for Windows NT 3.5. Petitioner has not proffered any testimony or sworn
`
`testimony attesting to the authenticity of the contents in Exhibit 1005.3 In
`
`addition, Exhibit 1005 is not a self-authenticating document. As a result,
`
`Exhibit 1005 is inadmissible as lacking authentication under FRE 901.
`
`These objections are being timely served within 10 business days of the institution
`
`of trial, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). The institution of trial in this
`
`matter occurred on October 11, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Patrick J. Lee/
`Patrick J. Lee (Reg. No. 61,746)
`Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue
`Suite 830
`Washington, D.C. 20015
`Telephone: 202-362-3500
`Fax: 202-362-3501
`Email: patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Novak, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269, *17-18 (“As Novak proffers
`neither testimony nor sworn statements attesting to the authenticity of the contested
`web page exhibits by any employee of the companies hosting the sites from which
`plaintiff printed the pages, such exhibits cannot be authenticated as required under
`the Rules of Evidence.”) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2046
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was
`served, by agreement of the parties, by electronic mail on counsel for the Petitioner
`on October 25, 2013 as follows:
`
`
`Paul C. Haughey
`Michael T. Morlock
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 25, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Patrick J. Lee /
`
`Patrick J. Lee
`Registration No. 61,746
`Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP
`5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Suite 830
`Washington, DC 20015
`Telephone: 202-362-3500
`Fax: 202-362-3501
`Email: patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Straight Path Ex. 2046
`Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`Case No. IPR2013-00246