`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TARGET CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`DESTINATION MATERNITY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00530 (Patent RE43,563 E)
`Case IPR2013-00531 (Patent RE43,563 E)
`Case IPR2013-00532 (Patent RE43,531 E)
`Case IPR2013-00533 (Patent RE43,531 E)
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1151
`Target v. DMC
`IPR2013-00530, 531, 532, 533
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. 2013-000530; 2013-00531; 2013-00532; 2013-0533
`Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), petitioner Target Corporation (“Target”) hereby
`objects to the admissibility of the exhibits listed below, and contends that they are inadmissible,
`based on Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 106, 401, 402, 403, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 1001,
`and 1002, because the exhibits are inadmissible hearsay and are irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial,
`inclusive of testimony in which the declarant, as a lay witness, offers his/her opinion, lacking of
`proper foundation, not in conformity with the best evidence rule, and unauthenticated.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Title
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`October 19, 2007 blog post on The Mommy Playbook
`
`July 31, 2008 blog post on Mamanista!
`
`May 31, 2008 blog post on Everyday Becky
`
`July 15, 2008 Review: Secret Fit Belly Jeans from Motherhood Maternity
`
`January 30, 2008 blog post on Pinching Your Pennies Forums
`
`October 28, 2008 blog post on The Shy Girl’s Guide to Pregnancy and Parenting
`
`October 3, 2008 blog post on Mamapedia
`
`January 2008 blog post on The Bump
`
`October 15, 2008 blog post on Pregnant Fashionista
`
`August 2008 blog post on Libby's Latest
`
`January 6, 2009 blog post on Keeping the Kingdom First
`
`May 21, 2009 blog post on Pregnant Fashionista
`
`
`
`
`Further, because the PTAB authorized the filing of the complete transcripts of the
`depositions of Mindy Simon and Gregory Stangle, (see Case IPR2013-00530, Paper 12; Case
`IPR2013-00531, Paper 9; Case IPR2013-00532, Paper 9; and Case IPR2013-00533, Paper 10),
`and since both complete transcripts have since been filed in each respective case, Target hereby
`objects to the admissibility of the exhibits listed below under FRE 106 and 403 to the extent that
`DMC claims that the transcript excerpts in Exhibits Nos. 2005 and 2006 should be considered
`
`
`
`2
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1151
`Target v. DMC
`IPR2013-00530, 531, 532, 533
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. 2013-000530; 2013-00531; 2013-00532; 2013-0533
`Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`alone or in isolation from the corresponding complete deposition transcripts, and because the
`probative value of such excerpts, if any, is outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Target resulting
`from any consideration of such excerpts alone or in isolation from the corresponding complete
`deposition transcripts.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Title
`
`Excerpts from the October 10, 2013 Deposition of Mindy Simon
`
`Excerpts from the October 4, 2013 Deposition of Gregory Stangle
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`
`
`Target reserves the right to assert additional objections or to revise its objections set forth
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`
`Dated: March 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
` /s/ Daniel M. Lechleiter
` Daniel M. Lechleiter
`
`norman.hedges@faegrebd.com
`trevor.carter@faegrebd.com
`daniel.lechleiter@faegrebd.com
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`300 N. Meridian St. Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, IN 46204-1750
`Telephone:
`317-237-0300
`Facsimile:
`317-237-1000
`
`E-mail:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1151
`Target v. DMC
`IPR2013-00530, 531, 532, 533
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. 2013-000530; 2013-00531; 2013-00532; 2013-0533
`Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of
`the foregoing document to be served via email on March 3, 2014 on the foregoing:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul A. Taufer
`Michael L. Burns
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market Street, Suite 4900
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`paul.taufer@dlapiper.com
`michael.burns@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`
`By:
`
`
` /s/ Daniel M. Lechleiter
` Daniel M. Lechleiter
`
`Dated: March 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`300 N. Meridian St. Suite 2700
`Indianapolis, IN 46204-1750
`Telephone:
`317-237-0300
`Facsimile:
`317-237-1000
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Target Corporation Exhibit 1151
`Target v. DMC
`IPR2013-00530, 531, 532, 533
`
`