UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE TI IE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`LOCATI'ONE'I‘ SYSTEMS, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00199
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`Petitioner’s Evidentiary Objections Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`** Service Only **
`
`m m f RQSR q R
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 1
`
`
`
`BEFORE TI IE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`LOCATI'ONE'I‘ SYSTEMS, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00199
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`Petitioner’s Evidentiary Objections Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`** Service Only **
`
`m m f RQSR q R
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 1
`
`
`
`Case lPR2014-00199
`
`Patent 6,771,970
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.13.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Location Labs respectfully
`
`asserts the following objections to the evidence proffered with the Patent Owner's
`
`Response ofAugust 1 1, 2014. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRIE) apply to
`
`these proceedings according to the provisions of 37 CPR. §42.62(a), and these
`
`rules form the basis of the objections contained herein. These objections are being
`
`served within five business days from the date the Response and its accompanying
`
`evidence were served on Petitioner.
`
`l.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 2017-2019
`
`Exhibits 2017, 2018 and 2019 are not identified or authenticated, and are
`
`thus inadmissible pursuant to FRE 90].
`
`Exhibits 2017, 2018 and 2019 constitute impermissible hearsay that does not
`
`fall within any know exception, and thus inadmissible pursuant to FRE 802. For
`
`example, copyright dates and other date information appearing on each of these
`
`Exhibits are hearsay because that information is being offered to prove the truth of
`
`the matter being asserted; namely, that the contents of the documents was publicly
`
`available, or at least represents the views of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, as ofthose dates. [Ii/grave v. Symantec Corp, 271 F. Supp.2d 9564, 974-75
`
`(ED. Mich. 2003). Second, the definitions of "database” and "engine" appez-n'ing
`
`in the Exhibits are hearsay because they are being offered for the truth of the
`
`m m f RQSR q S
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 2
`
`
`
`Case [PR2014-001 0‘)
`
`Patent 6.771.970
`
`matter being asserted, as evidenced by the adoption ofa claim construction
`
`position for these terms that parrots the cited dictionary definitions. Sec, cg,
`
`Exhibit 2016, W 28 and 32.
`
`Exhibits 2017, 2018 and 2019 lack relevance and are potentially prejudicial.
`
`Even il‘thc date information associated with the documents was properly
`
`authenticated, which it is not, the documents are not relevant to the critical time
`
`frame; the effective filing date ofthe application upon which the ‘970 patent is
`
`based. Thus, the Exhibits are inadmissible pursuant to FREE 402 and 403.
`
`II.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2016 ~ DECLARATION OF DR.
`
`MANDAYAM
`
`The above—mentioned Declaration (Exhibit 2016) is inadmissible pursuant to
`
`FRE 403, 702 and 703 because it fails to assist the trier offact to understand or
`
`determine a fact in issue, is based upon insufficient facts or information, is not the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods, does not reliably apply the principles
`
`and methods to the facts of this case, and/or its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the risk ofprejudice, confusion and/or delay. The majority ofthe
`
`Declaration is a nearly verbatim copy of the Patent Owner's Response, thus calling
`
`into question the actual basis ofthe testimony. The Declaration offers little, it‘any,
`
`actual expert testimony that would assist the Board in understanding the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of any of the claim terms.
`
`Instead, the Declaration
`
`m m f RQSR q T
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 3
`
`
`
`Case ll’R2014-00199
`
`Patent 6321,9711
`
`presents nothing of substance that goes beyond the attorney argument contained in
`
`the Patent Owner's Response. The Declaration is inadmissible, for at least the
`
`reasons noted above, pursuant to FRE 403 and 702 and 703.
`
`Paragraph 15 of the Declaration contains opinion testimony on the legal
`
`issue of claim construction ("it is my opinion that no explicit constructions for
`
`claim terms or phrases are necessary beyond their ordinary and customary
`
`meanings").
`
`It has not been established that Dr. Mandayam is qualified to testify
`
`as an expert on this subject. Thus Exhibit 2016 is inadmissible pursuant to FRI}:
`
`702. See also, 37 CPR. § 42.6S(a) ("Testimony on United States patent law or
`
`patent examination practice will not be admitted").
`
`Paragraphs 28 and 32 reference and expressly rely upon and incorporate
`
`unauthenticated hearsay via reference to Exhibits 2017, 2018 andi’or 2019. "thus,
`
`the Declaration is inadmissible pursuant to FRE 403, 802 and 901.
`
`Paragraph 39 offers opinion testimony that the Elliott reference fails to
`
`disclose each and every element set forth in claim 18 because Elliott ”simply
`
`teaches superimposing an r'X' mark to detect the location of the traction device on a
`
`static map image,” as opposed to the ”dynamic functions" associated with the 970
`
`patent "database" and "engine." This testimony lacks relevance, and is potentially
`
`prejudicial. Claim 18 does not require a ”dynamic" database or engine. Moreover,
`
`even the claim construction proffered by the Patent Owner does not include the
`
`m m f RQSR q U
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 4
`
`
`
`term "dynamic." Therefore, the Declaration is inadmissible pursuant to FRE 402
`
`Case lPR20l4-00199
`
`Patent 6371.970
`
`and 403.
`
`['11. CONCLUSION
`
`The evidence proffered by the Patent Owner in the August 1 l, 2014 Patent
`
`Owner Response is objectionable for at least the reasons noted above. Petitioner
`
`reserves the right to move to exclude the evidence objected to herein at the
`
`appropriate time.
`
`Dated: August 18, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Dcntons US LLP
`
`By: /Scott W. Cumminas/
`
`Mark L. Hogge, Reg. No. 3 [,622
`Email: mark.hogge@dentons.eom
`
`Scott W. Cummings, Reg. No. 41,567
`Email: scottcummings@dentons.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`m m f RQSR q V
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 5
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 37 C.F.R.
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner‘s Evidentiary
`
`Objections Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.64 was served Via FedEx Priority Overnight,
`
`in its entirety on Attorneys of record in lPR2014-00199.
`
`Thomas Engellcnner
`
`Andy Chan
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa
`
`Pepper Hamilton LIP
`
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`
`333 Twin Dolphin Dr.
`
`125 High Street
`
`Suite 400
`
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`Dated: August 183 2014
`
`Sharon M. Norwood
`
`m m f RQSR q W
`Location Labs Exhibit 1021 Page 6
`
`
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
