Attorney Docket No
`IPR2014-00108
`110900-0004-656
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., MACRONIX ASIA LIMITED,
`MACRONIX (HONG KONG) CO., LTD., and MACRONIX AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPANSION LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00108
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and RICHARD
`E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER SPANSION LLC’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting in
`
`
`
`a representative capacity for Patent Owner, Spansion LLC (“Patent Owner”), hereby
`
`submits the following objections to Petitioners Macronix Intl. Ltd.’s, Macronix Asia
`
`Ltd.’s, Macronix (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.’s, and Macronix America, Inc.’s (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) Exhibit MX027-1002, Exhibit MX027-1008, Exhibit MX027-1009, and
`
`any reference to/reliance on the foregoing. As required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62, Patent
`
`Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`Spansion Exhibit 2007
`Macronix et al v. Spansion
`IPR2014-00108
`Page 00001
`
`
`IPR2014-00108
`110900-0004-656
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., MACRONIX ASIA LIMITED,
`MACRONIX (HONG KONG) CO., LTD., and MACRONIX AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPANSION LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00108
`Patent 7,151,027 B1
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and RICHARD
`E. RICE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER SPANSION LLC’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting in
`
`
`
`a representative capacity for Patent Owner, Spansion LLC (“Patent Owner”), hereby
`
`submits the following objections to Petitioners Macronix Intl. Ltd.’s, Macronix Asia
`
`Ltd.’s, Macronix (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.’s, and Macronix America, Inc.’s (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) Exhibit MX027-1002, Exhibit MX027-1008, Exhibit MX027-1009, and
`
`any reference to/reliance on the foregoing. As required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62, Patent
`
`Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`Spansion Exhibit 2007
`Macronix et al v. Spansion
`IPR2014-00108
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00108
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`
`
`Attorney Docket No
`110900-0004-656
`
`I.
`
`Objections to Exhibit MX027-1002 and Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit MX027-1002 of Petitioners’ Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027 (“Petition”), titled “Corrected Declaration
`
`of Dhaval J. Brahmbhatt,” including at least ¶¶ 13-137.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E.
`
`403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or
`
`Other Reasons”).
`
`The witness providing the declaration attached as Exhibit MX027-1002
`
`provides insufficient underlying facts or data upon which the opinions contained in
`
`Exhibit MX027-1002 could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702.
`
`Accordingly, permitting any reliance on this purported expert testimony in the
`
`Petition or other submissions of Petitioners would be misleading and unfairly
`
`prejudicial to Patent Owner (F.R.E. 403).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit MX027-1008 and Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit MX027-1008, and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 106 (“Remainder of or Related Writings or
`
`Recorded Statements”); F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”); F.R.E.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No
`IPR2014-00108
`110900-0004-656
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or
`
`Other Reasons”).
`
`While Petitioners attach a purported “Excerpt from Streetman, Ben, SOLID
`
`STATE ELECTRONIC DEVICES, 4th Ed (Prentice Hall 1995)” as MX027-1008,
`
`Petitioners’ citations to that Exhibit in the Petition (on page 21) and in the Corrected
`
`Declaration of Dhaval J. Brahmbhatt (in ¶ 120 (citing to MX027-1011 [sic])) omit
`
`citations to portions “that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time”
`
`(F.R.E. 106; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6)).
`
`Furthermore, Petitioners fail to provide for Exhibit MX027-1008 the
`
`authentication required by F.R.E. 901. While Petitioners’ exhibit list refers to Exhibit
`
`MX027-1008 as “Excerpt from Streetman, Ben, SOLID STATE ELECTRONIC
`
`DEVICES, 4th Ed (Prentice Hall 1995),” Petitioners have presented no evidence
`
`concerning the origin of this document or confirming that it is what it is labeled to be.
`
`Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit MX027-1008 without providing any
`
`authenticating evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what
`
`Petitioners claim it is, in violation of F.R.E. 901.
`
`In addition, to the extent the Petition, the Corrected Declaration of Dhaval J.
`
`Brahmbhatt, or any other submission of Petitioners purports to refer to or rely on
`
`Exhibit MX027-1008, Patent Owner objects to such reference to/reliance on
`
`evidence that is not properly authenticated (F.R.E. 901) and/or omit citations to
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No
`IPR2014-00108
`110900-0004-656
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`portions “that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time” (F.R.E. 106), and
`
`as misleading and unfairly prejudicial (F.R.E. 403).
`
`III. Objections to Exhibit MX027-1009 and Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit MX027-1008, and any reference to or reliance
`
`thereon.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”);
`
`F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time,
`
`or Other Reasons”).
`
`Petitioners fail to provide for Exhibit MX027-1009 the authentication required
`
`by F.R.E. 901. While Petitioners’ exhibit list refers to Exhibit MX027-1009 as “Kim,
`
`J.H., et al., An Empirical Model for Charge Leakage Through Oxide-Nitride-Oxide
`
`Interpoly Dielectric
`
`in
`
`Stacked-Gate
`
`Flash Memory Devices,
`
`18
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR SCI. & TECH. 158 (16 Jan. 2003),” Petitioners have presented
`
`no evidence concerning the origin of this document or confirming that it is what it is
`
`labeled to be. Petitioners thus improperly cite to Exhibit MX027-1009 without
`
`providing any authenticating evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is
`
`what Petitioners claim it is, in violation of F.R.E. 901.
`
`In addition, to the extent the Petition, the Corrected Declaration of Dhaval J.
`
`Brahmbhatt, or any other submission of Petitioners purports to refer to or rely on
`
`Exhibit MX027-1009, Patent Owner objects to such reference to/reliance on
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No
`IPR2014-00108
`110900-0004-656
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`evidence that is not properly authenticated (F.R.E. 901) and/or omit citations to
`
`portions “that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time” (F.R.E. 106), and
`
`as misleading and unfairly prejudicial (F.R.E. 403).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00108
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`
`
`Attorney Docket No
`110900-0004-656
`
`
`
`May 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins (Backup Counsel)
`J. Steven Baughman (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`Reg. No. 38,916
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`One Metro Center, 700 12th St. – Ste. 900
`1900 University Avenue – Suite 600
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`P: 650-617-4000 /F: 650-617-4090
`P: 202-508-4606 / F: 202-383-8371
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing address for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM – Floor 43, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner, Spansion LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00108
`U.S. Patent No. 7,151,027
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Attorney Docket No
`110900-0004-656
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER
`
`SPANSION LLC’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS’
`
`EXHIBITS has been served in its entirety by causing the aforementioned document
`
`to be electronically mailed, pursuant to the Petitioner and Patent Owner’s agreement,
`
`to the following attorneys of record for the Petitioner listed below:
`
`
`Petitioner’s Counsel
`of Record:
`
`
`Michael M. Murray (mmurray@winston.com)
`Michael J. Scheer (mscheer@winston.com)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Ave.
`New York, NY 10166
`
`Andrew R. Sommer (ASommer@winston.com)
`Vivian S. Kuo (VKuo@winston.com)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-3817
`
`
`Dated:
`
`May 22, 2014
`
`/Jordan M. Rossen/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`7
`
`Page 00007
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
