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
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT YURI
`
`KOLESNIKOV
`
`
`
`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
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT YURI
`
`KOLESNIKOV
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on June 4, 2014 and the Office Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012), Petitioner Sipnet EU
`
`S.R.O. respectfully submits the following responses to the observations submitted
`
`by the Patent Owner regarding the May 29, 2014 cross—examination of Petitioner’s
`
`declarant Yuri Kolesnikov.
`
`RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Response to Observations 1 and 2
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s Observations 1 and 2 and specifically that
`
`“Declarant Yuri Kolesnikov Testified That His Declaration Only Refers to a
`
`Digital Copy of WINS and Not Exhibit 1004”, and “Mr. Kolesnikov Testified That
`
`He Does Not Know the Origin of Exhibit 1004, the WINS Manual,” Petitioner
`
`respectfully notes that in Exhibit 2043, on Page 24, Lines 14-25; and Page 21, Line
`
`23 through Page 23, Line 3, Mr. Kolesnikov testified that:
`
`Ex. 2043, Page 24, Lines 14-25:
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Q. Okay. So you looked at --
`
`At the time, when you went to do a
`
`16 comparison, you compared the CD—ROM with another
`
`17 document that may not have been what is in Exhibit
`
`18 1004?
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`19
`
`A.
`
`I compared —— I compared this document,
`
`20 which looked exactly the same, and I looked at the
`
`21
`
`content. I didn't look at any headers or anything.
`
`22 So I looked at the content related to Microsoft
`
`23 TCP/IP manual. I don't recall anything saying
`
`24 "Exhibit 1004" or anything else. I cannot say it
`
`25 was not there. I cannot remember.
`
`Ex. 2043, Page 21, Line 23 through Page 23, Line 3:
`
`23
`
`Q. All right. In Paragraph 11 of your
`
`24 declaration, you state that, "I compared the
`
`25 digital copy of the Windows NT Server retail TCP/IP
`
`0022
`
`1 Guide on the CD—ROM to Exhibit 1004 in the
`
`2 aboVe—referenced case. The two documents are
`
`3
`
`substantially identical."
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`You wrote that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. So talk me through what exactly you did.
`
`A. So what I did, one of the question that
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`8 came from Julia was if I remember the TCP/IP guide
`
`9 that came with Windows manual. And it was not in
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`my copy, and as far as I remember, they never
`
`distributed it with a standard —— Microsoft never
`
`distributed this manual with a copy of Windows NT.
`
`However, they distributed with new computer. There
`
`were some computers from some manufacturers which I
`
`don't remember, but they had more manuals included
`
`16
`
`with Windows NT box.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`So obviously I looked at Google for this
`
`manual and found a PDF copy, scanned PDF copy of
`
`this manual. And I looked through this manual and
`
`20
`
`I looked at the help file on CD—ROM, and, yes, they
`
`21
`
`look the same.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`And I remember that, what I recall, from
`
`my experience in '94, that they have pretty much
`
`the same content that they have in the manual, just
`
`25
`
`in a different format. PDF didn't exist at that
`
`0023
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`1
`
`time, so they used Microsoft Help format. And
`
`2 content was the same. Obviously formatting is
`
`3 different, but all the words are the same.
`
`The above testimony is relevant to (1) Exhibit 1017, the Kolesnikov
`
`Declaration; (2) Exhibit 1019, the Yuri Guide; and (3) Exhibit 1004, the WINS.
`
`The above testimony is relevant because it clearly establishes the similarity
`
`between WINS (Exhibit 1004) and Windows NT TCP/IP Guide, corroborates the
`
`Kolesnikov Declaration (Exhibit 1017) and supports the conclusion that the
`
`Exhibit 1019, the Yuri Guide is substantially identical to the Exhibit 1004, the
`
`WINS and that the WINS was publicly available before the critical date.
`
`B.
`
`Response to Observation 3
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s Observation 3 and specifically that “Declarant
`
`Mr. Kolesnikov Testified That He Could Not Verify the Year He Installed the
`
`Windows NT 3.5 Server,” Petitioner respectfully notes that in Exhibit 2043, on
`
`Page 26, Lines 7-18, Mr. Kolesnikov testified that:
`
`Ex. 2043, Page 26, Lines 7-18
`
`7
`
`Q. So I wanted to go back to I guess it's
`
`8 Paragraph 6 in your declaration which says --
`
`9 sorry, not Paragraph 6.
`
`10
`
`Paragraph 7 in your declaration. You say
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`11 here, "Some of the bundled Windows NT 3.5 Server
`
`12 packages I saw in fall of 1994 included a printed
`
`13 copy of Windows NT TCP/IP Guide."
`
`14
`
`Based upon your testimony today, what it
`
`15
`
`sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that
`
`16 your recollection is that a manual like what is
`
`17 Exhibit 1004 was distributed with new PC's?
`
`18
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`The above testimony is relevant to (1) Exhibit 1017, the Kolesnikov
`
`Declaration; (2) Exhibit 1019, the Yuri Guide; and (3) Exhibit 1004, the WINS.
`
`The above testimony is relevant because it shows that, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`observation, declarant Yuri Kolesnikov’s testimony established that he installed
`
`the Windows NT 3.5 Server in the fall of 1994 and that WINS was publicly
`
`available before the critical date.
`
`C.
`
`Response to Observation 4
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s Observation 4 and specifically that “Mr.
`
`Kolesnikov’s Testimony Demonstrates that a Connection Exists Between
`
`Petitioner and Stalker Software,” Petitioner respectfully notes that in Exhibit 2043,
`
`on Page 35, Line 20 through Page 37, Line 5, Mr. Kolesnikov testified that:
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Ex. 2043, Page 35, Line 20 through Page 37, Line 5
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Q. Did you know him in Latvia?
`
`A. No, he was in Russia at this time, but we
`
`22 contacted at some conferences.
`
`23
`
`Q. And have you had any discussions with
`
`24 Mr. Antonov about the Exhibit 1004?
`
`25
`
`A. No.
`
`0036
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Objection, scope.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`Q. Have you had any discussions with
`
`4 Mr. Antonov about the Microsoft Windows NT Server
`
`5 box that you provided?
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Objection, scope.
`
`THE WITNESS: No.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`Q. Are you aware of any activities that
`
`10 Mr. Antonov has had in this matter?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Objection, scope.
`
`THE WITNESS: No.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`13
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`14
`
`Q. When is the last time you spoke with
`
`15 Mr. Antonov?
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`A. About two weeks ago.
`
`Q. What did you talk about?
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Objection, scope.
`
`THE WITNESS: Snorkeling.
`
`MR. HOFFMAN: Snorkeling.
`
`Q. Have you had any —— are you in regular
`
`22 contact with Mr. Antonov?
`
`23
`
`A. Yes.
`
`24
`
`MR. MORLOCK: Objection, scope.
`
`25
`
`MR. HOFFMAN:
`
`0037
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Q. Via e—mail?
`
`A. Mostly personally.
`
`Q. Just —— is that by phone and in—person
`
`4 meetings?
`
`5
`
`A. That's correct.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`The above testimony is relevant to (1) Exhibit 1017, the Kolesnikov
`
`Declaration; (2) Paper 30, Pages 8-16; and (3) Paper 33, Pages 1-4. The above
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that, contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`observation, declarant Yuri Kolesnikov’s testimony demonstrated nothing more
`
`than mere knowledge of Stalker Software by Mr. Kolesnikov.
`
`Dated: June 20, 2014
`
`/Pavel I. P0g0dz'n/
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Pavel I. Pogodin
`Registration No. 48,205
`Transpacific Law Group
`530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`pavel@transpacificlaw.com
`Tel.: 650-469-3750
`
`Fax: 650-472-8961
`
`Sanjay Prasad
`Registration No. 36,247
`Prasad IP, PC
`
`1768 Miramonte Avenue, #4845
`
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`sanjay@prasadip.com
`Tel: 650-918-7647
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON CROSS—EXAMINATION OF
`
`PETITIONER’S DECLARANT YURI KOLESNIKOV was served, by agreement
`of the parties, by electronic mail on counsel for the Patent Owner on June 20, 2014
`as follows:
`
`Patrick J. Lee
`
`Alan M. Fisch
`
`Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP
`Patrick.Lee@fischllp.com
`Alan.Fisch@fischllp.com
`
`Dated: June 20, 2014
`
`/Pavel I. P0g0din/
`
`Pavel I. Pogodin
`Registration No. 48,205
`Transpacific Law Group
`530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`
`pavel@transpacificlaw.com
`Tel.: 650-469-3750
`
`Fax: 650-472-8961
`
`Sanjay Prasad
`Registration No. 36,247
`Prasad IP, PC
`
`1768 Miramonte Avenue, #4845
`
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`sanjay@prasadip.com
`Tel: 650-918-7647
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`Dated: June 20, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Telephone: (415) 576-0200
`Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of
`
`PETITIONER’S LIST OF ISSUES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.70
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.64(c)
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OVW\1ER’S OBSERVATION
`
`ON CROSS—EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT
`
`LESLIE EHRLICH
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION
`
`ON CROSS—EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT
`
`YURI KOLESNIKOV
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION
`
`ON CROSS—EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S DECLARANT
`
`VADIM ANTONOV
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR20l3-00246
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`have been served, by agreement of the parties, by electronic mail on counsel for
`
`Patent Owner on June 20, 2014 as follows:
`
`Patrick J. Lee
`
`Fisch Hoffman Sigler LLP
`Patricl<.lee@fischllp.com
`
` Dated:
`June 20, 2014 Paul C. Haughey
`
`Registration No. 31,836
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Telephone: 415-576-0200
`Fax: 415-576-0300
`
`Email: phaughey @killpatricktownsend.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
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
