BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2014-00059
`
`In re:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC & Level3 Communications
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`David A. Farber and Ronald D. Lachman
`
`For: IDENTIFYING AND REQUESTING DATA IN NETWORK USING
`IDENTIFIERS WHICH ARE BASED ON CONTENTS OF DATA
`
`* * * * * * * * * * *
`
`April29, 2014
`
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
`DURING A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(b)(l)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l), patent owner PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC objects to the admissibility of the documents identified below
`
`that were submitted by petitioner(s) during the preliminary proceedings, for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner's Exhibits 1004 (Langer), 1009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid) are all
`
`objected to because they have not been authenticated as required by
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901. And these documents are not self-
`
`1
`
`2337476
`
`
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trial No.:
`
`IPR 2014-00059
`
`In re:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC & Level3 Communications
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
`
`Inventors:
`
`David A. Farber and Ronald D. Lachman
`
`For: IDENTIFYING AND REQUESTING DATA IN NETWORK USING
`IDENTIFIERS WHICH ARE BASED ON CONTENTS OF DATA
`
`* * * * * * * * * * *
`
`April29, 2014
`
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
`DURING A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(b)(l)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l), patent owner PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC objects to the admissibility of the documents identified below
`
`that were submitted by petitioner(s) during the preliminary proceedings, for the
`
`following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner's Exhibits 1004 (Langer), 1009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid) are all
`
`objected to because they have not been authenticated as required by
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901. And these documents are not self-
`
`1
`
`2337476
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Objections to Documents
`
`IPR20l4-00059 (US 6,415,280)
`
`authenticating. See also the reasons regarding non-authentication
`
`discussed inNovakv. Tucows, Inc., No. 06-CV-1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269, * 17-18 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).
`
`2. The entire documents ofPetitioner's Exhibits 1004 (Langer), 1009
`
`(Reid), 1010 (Reid), 1011 (Quarterman), and 1012 (Todino), including
`
`but not limited to information relating to dates and alleged posting
`
`information if any, are hearsay under FRE 801 and inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802-807. See also the reasons discussed in St. Clair v. Johnny's
`
`Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F.Supp.2d 773 (S.D. Tex. 1999); andNovakv.
`
`Tucows, Inc., No. 06-CV-1909 (JFB) (ARL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`21269, *15-16 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007).
`
`3. There is no admissible evidence establishing that any of Exhibits 1004
`
`(Langer), 1009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid) was/were sufficiently publicly
`
`accessible prior to April 11, 1995 to qualify as printed publications, and
`
`therefore these documents do not constitute prior art. Petitioner(s)
`
`has/have failed to establish that the printouts at Petitioner's Exhibits
`
`1 004 (Langer), 1 009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid) accurately depict any
`
`alleged publications/posts allegedly made at any time prior to April 11,
`
`1995. See also the reasons on pages 18-21 of patent owner's
`
`Preliminary Response in this IPR.
`2
`
`2337476
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Objections to Documents
`
`IPR20l4-00059 (US 6,415,280)
`
`4. The claims (including the "name" language in the claims) ofWoodhill
`
`(Ex. 1 003 ), and all statements submitted by petitioner citing to or relying
`
`upon the same, are objected to and should be excluded as irrelevant,
`
`prejudicial, confusing, lacking foundation, and beyond the scope of this
`
`IPR. The relied-upon "name" subject matter in the claims of Woodhill
`
`is not "prior art" to the '280 patent and has not been shown to be "prior
`
`art" to the '280 patent. See e.g., Federal Rules ofEvidence (FRE) 401,
`
`402, 403, 702, 703. Woodhill was "filed" before Aprilll, 1995 (the
`
`effective filing date of the '280 patent), but was not published until after
`
`April 11, 1995. Any material added to Woodhill after April 11, 1995
`
`(e.g., including the information in the claims of Woodhill, such as the
`
`"name" recitations in the claims of Woodhill in connection with binary
`
`object identifier(s)) cannot be relied upon in this IPR and is not prior art.
`
`This subject matter was added to the claims in Woodhill after April 11,
`
`1995 and is not described in Woodhill 's originally filed specification,
`
`and thus is not prior art to the '280 patent.
`
`5. Exhibit 1007 (Mercer Declaration) and Exhibit 1008 (Reddy
`
`Declaration) statements regarding alleged dates, alleged publication, and
`
`alleged postings ofExs. 1004, 1009 and 1010 are objected to as lacking
`
`3
`
`2337476
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Objections to Documents
`
`IPR2014-00059 (US 6,415,280)
`
`foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on
`
`matters as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge, conclusory,
`
`and containing testimony concerning documents for which
`
`authentication required by FRE 901 is lacking. For example and without
`
`limitation, these witnesses have no personal knowledge regarding
`
`whether any ofExhibits 1004 (Langer), 1009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid)
`
`are authentic or existed prior to the critical date, and have no personal
`
`knowledge regarding whether any of these documents qualify as printed
`
`publications; and these documents have not been established as printed
`
`publications and have not been authenticated as required by FRE 901,
`
`and thus all statements and testimony by these witnesses concerning
`
`alleged dates, alleged publication, and alleged postings of these
`
`documents lack foundation, assume facts not in evidence, are
`
`conclusory, are not based on personal knowledge, and represent
`
`improper testimony under FRE 702. No witness has personal knowledge
`
`of these exhibits having existed prior to the critical date. All statements
`
`by these witnesses regarding alleged dates and alleged postings of
`
`Exhibits 1004 (Langer), 1009 (Reid), and 1010 (Reid), and whether
`
`these documents are printed publications and/or qualify as prior art, are
`
`objected to as hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible under FRE
`
`802-807, lack foundation, and represent improper testimony under FRE
`
`4
`
`2337476
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2014-00059 (US 6,415,280)
`
`702. For example, paragraphs 11 and 13-18 ofExhibit 1008 (Reddy
`
`Declaration), and all testimony by Reddy regarding dates and alleged
`
`publications and document existence, are objected to as not being based
`
`on personal knowledge, constituting inadmissible hearsay, improper
`
`opinion testimony, improper under PRE 702, conclusory, and lacking
`
`foundation.
`
`These objections have been made within 10 business days from the April 15,
`
`2014 institution of trial.
`
`JAR:caj
`Nixon & Vanderhye, PC
`901 North Glebe Road, lith Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`Telephone: (703) 816-4000
`Facsimile: (703) 816-4100
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`NIXON & V ANDERHYE P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/Joseph A. Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rho a
`Reg. No. 37,515
`Updeep (Mickey) S. Gill
`Reg. No. 37,334
`Counsel for Patent Owner PersonalWeb
`
`5
`
`2337476
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Objections to Documents
`
`IPR 2014-00059 (US 6,415,280)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify service of the foregoing Patent Owner's Objections to
`
`Documents Submitted During a Preliminary Proceeding Pursuant to 37 C.P.R.§
`
`42.64(b)(l) to the following lead counsel for petitioner on April 29, 2014 via email
`
`(pursuant to agreement between the parties):
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Ste. 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`(andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com)
`
`By:
`
`/Joseph A. Rhoa/
`------------~--------------
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`
`6
`
`2337476
`
`
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
