`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00636
`U.S. Patent No. 6,424,625
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S
`REPLY DECLARANT DR. HARRY BIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138212033v.1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Declarant Dr. Harry Bims
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s November 11, 2014 e-mail Order, Petitioner submits
`
`
`
`the following responses to Patent Owner’s observations on the October 17, 2014
`
`cross-examination of Petitioner’s reply declarant Dr. Harry Bims (Paper 49).
`
`
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Observation #1: Citing to Dr. Bims’
`
`October deposition (Ex. 2029), Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Bims used the AX.25
`
`specification as a basis for an opinion about the control field 80 in Garrabrant.
`
`However, at page 83, lines 5-11 of Exhibit 2029 Dr. Bims states that he did not
`
`rely on the AX.25 protocol in forming his opinions. Indeed, neither Dr. Bims’
`
`reply declaration nor Petitioner’s reply mention AX.25. Therefore the portions of
`
`Exhibit 2029 identified in Patent Owner’s Observation #1 are not relevant to ¶ 4 of
`
`Dr. Bims’ reply declaration in which he states that the RNR command in
`
`Garrabrant is an example of a command that could be used to send a “lost”
`
`message (Ex. 1022), nor are the identified portions relevant to Petitioner’s use of
`
`Dr. Bims’ testimony at page 9 of its reply to Patent Owner’s response (Paper No.
`
`45).
`
`
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Observation #2: Patent Owner alleges that
`
`Dr. Bims contradicted his earlier testimony when he testified in his October
`
`deposition (Ex. 2029) that Garrabrant discloses an RNR command that may be
`
`used to send a “lost” message command. However, Dr. Bims’ October deposition
`
`
`ActiveUS 138212033v.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Declarant Dr. Harry Bims
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`
`is entirely consistent with his prior testimony. In his October deposition and ¶ 4 of
`
`Dr. Bims’ Reply Declaration (Ex. 1022), Dr. Bims testified that the RNR
`
`command (in Garrabrant’s command tables) is an example of a command that can
`
`be used to send a “lost” message. Dr. Bims never asserted that Garrabrant’s tables
`
`use the word “lost.” (See Ex. 2029 at 65:18-68:8; Ex. 1022 at ¶ 4). In the
`
`identified portion of his May deposition, Dr. Bims was directed to Garrabrant’s
`
`command tables and testified that the tables do not list a command named “lost.”
`
`(Ex. 2028 at 25:21-26:2). Thus, there is no inconsistency between Dr. Bims’ May
`
`and October testimony.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 19, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`60 State St.
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138212033v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Declarant Dr. Harry Bims
`Case No. IPR2013-00636/U.S. Pat. No. 6,424,625
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on November 19, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`
`FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S
`
`REPLY DECLARANT DR. HARRY BIMS to be served via email on the
`
`attorneys identified in Wi-Fi One’s Updated Mandatory Notice and Notice of
`
`Appearance for John Shumaker, whom consented to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`J. Christopher Lynch, John Shumaker
`EricssonIPR2013-636@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael A. Diener/
`Michael A. Diener
`Registration No. 37,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 138212033v.1
`
`3
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
