throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. [PR2013—00505
`
`Patent 6,974,569
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`4818—1914—2428.
`
`000001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UN T.«:V«:R «iX—I
`% T 1063
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UN T.4'.V4'.R VS. P&OCTO& & GAD/H14.
`
`22'9R20l3—OO505
`
`
`
`
`
`000001
`
`UNILEVER EXHIBIT 1063
`UNILEVER VS. PROCTOR & GAMBLE
`IPR2013-00505
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2013-00505
`
`Attorney Docket No. 190058— 1001
`
`Pursuant to 3? C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Conopco, Inc. dba Unilever (“Petitioner”)
`
`submits the following objections to Exhibit Nos. 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, which were filed and
`
`served by Patent Owner, The Proctor & Gamble Company (“Patent Owner”), on July 25, 2014.
`
`Petitioner’s objections apply equally to Patent Owner’s reliance on these exhibits in its “Patent
`
`Owner’s Response Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.120,” or any subsequently-filed documents
`
`regarding same. These objections are timely, having been served within five business days of
`
`the service of the evidence herein objected to.
`
`Exhibit No. ”“13”me Objection
`of Ewdence
`
`
`
`2015 11‘“ 96-
`98
`
`402, 403, 702
`
`2015 11‘“
`100-102
`
`402, 403, 702
`
`2017 11‘“ 4»?
`
`402, 403
`
`Relevance; probative value substantially outweighed by
`danger of unfair prejudice; improper expert testimony, e.g.,
`conclusory opinion regarding commercial success where the
`growth rate evidence relied on by Dr. Lochhead is not limited
`to products covered by the ‘569 patent and where there is no
`evidence any such sales growth is attributable to the patented
`features of the ‘569 patent
`
`Relevance; probative value substantially outweighed by
`danger of unfair prejudice; improper expert testimony, e.g.,
`conclusory opinion regarding long-felt but umnet need where
`there is no evidence that any industry need was met by any
`patented feature of the ’569 patent
`
`Relevance; probative value substantially outweighed by
`danger of unfair prejudice, confilsion of issues, misleading
`evidence, e.g., CAGR calculations not applied to relevant
`products and no evidence that CAGR information is
`attributable to the patented features of the ’569 patent
`
`000002
`
`000002
`
`

`

`2018
`
`402, 403, 802,
`901, 106
`
`2020 11‘“ .41,
`12
`
`2'01, 2'02, 2'03,
`403
`
`Relevance; probative value substantially outweighed by
`danger of unfair prejudice, confiision of issues, misleading
`evidence, e.g., CAGR calculations not applied to relevant
`products and no evidence that CAGR information is
`attributable to the patented features of the ’569 patent;
`inadmissible hearsay; not authenticated as a record of
`regularly conducted activity; incomplete document, e.g., does
`not include comparison to overall industry performance
`
`Improper expert testimony by lay witness, e.g., improperly
`based on technical or specialized knowledge within the scope
`of Rule 702; improper expert testimony, e.g., does not
`establish that it is based upon sufficient facts or data or that
`reliable principles and methods were used and applied;
`probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair
`prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading evidence, e.g., only
`selectsfprovides representative examples and does not explain
`why those examples should qualify as “representative” as
`compared to other formulas
`
`
`
`2020, 114, 3"El
`sentence
`
`2'02, 2'03
`
`Improper expert testimony — lacks explanation for bases of
`opinion; lack of help for trier of fact to evaluate expert
`opinion— e.g., no explanation of calculationsfdeterminations
`
`2020 11‘“ 8,
`10
`
`2021
`
`802, 901, 106,
`1006, 403
`
`Inadmissible hearsay
`
`Inadmissible hearsay; not authenticated as a record of
`regularly conducted activity; incomplete document, e.g., does
`not provide complete data on testing procedures, protocols, or
`results of parameter testing; improper summary evidence;
`probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair
`prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading evidence
`
`In view of the foregoing objections, Petitioner likewise objects to any testimony or
`
`argument purporting to rely on any of Patent Owner’s Exhibit Nos. 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020,
`
`2021, or the discussion of the foregoing exhibits in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`000003
`
`000003
`
`

`

`Dated: Auggst 1, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By
`
`:
`
`{Josegh P. Meara.’
`Joseph P. Meara, Reg. No. 44,932
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`150 East Gilrnan Street, Suite 5000
`Madison, WI 53703
`(608) 258-4303
`
`Jeanne M. Gills, Reg. No. 44,458
`Michael R. Houston, Reg. No. 58,486
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 832-4500
`Counselfor Petitioner
`
`000004
`
`000004
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served electronically via e—mail on August II 2014, in
`
`its entirety on the following:
`
`David M. Maiorana
`
`John V. Biernacki
`Michael S. Weinstein
`
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OhJO 44114
`Tel: (216) 5863 939
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`‘13.131.°Iafla.@l9nes‘iay'°°m
`valernackl@]onesday.con1
`Insweinstein@jonesday com
`'
`
`Steven W. Miller
`
`Kim W. Zerby
`Carl J. Roof
`
`Angela K. Haughey
`THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE
`COMPANY
`299 E Sixth Street
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Tel: (513) 983-1246
`Fax: (513) 945—2729
`.11
`nu er-S"V@Pg-00111
`zerby.kw@pg.com
`roof.cj@pg.con1
`haughey.a@pg.con1
`
`Patent owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`By: Uosgh P. Mearaf
`Joseph P. Meara
`Registration No. 44,932
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`4818—1914—2428.
`
`000005
`
`000005
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket