IPR2014-00690
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`Filed on behalf of Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
`By: Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Ted M. Cannon
`Michelle E. Armond
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`Email: BoxSkyworks@Knobbe.com
`
`Filed: November 6, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00690
`Patent 8,539,275
`__________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Kinetic Exhibit 1015
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks
`IPR2014-00690
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`Filed on behalf of Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
`By: Brenton R. Babcock
`
`Ted M. Cannon
`Michelle E. Armond
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`Email: BoxSkyworks@Knobbe.com
`
`Filed: November 6, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00690
`Patent 8,539,275
`__________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Kinetic Exhibit 1015
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks
`IPR2014-00690
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00690
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of evidence served with the initial Petition on April 25, 2014.
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Lack of Foundation: the exhibit has not been shown to be prior art or
`a printed publication.
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`FRE 1002/1006: the exhibit is incomplete.
`
`Lack of Foundation: the exhibit has not been shown to be prior art or
`a printed publication.
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Lack of Foundation: the exhibit has not been shown to be prior art or
`a printed publication.
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`-1-
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00690
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Lack of Foundation: the exhibit has not been shown to be prior art or
`a printed publication.
`FRE 104(b)/FRE 604: any relevance of the exhibit depends on the
`accuracy of the English translation, and sufficient proof has not been
`introduced to support a finding that the English translation is accurate.
`Specifically, the declaration included in Exhibit 1007 does not
`establish that the declarant is able to assert, based upon personal
`knowledge or expertise, that the translator is qualified and/or the
`English translation is accurate. In addition, the Declaration included
`in Exhibit 1007 does not include an oath or affirmation by the
`translator to make a true translation.
`FRE 403: the exhibit, if admitted, would merely confuse the issues in
`the trial
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit 1007 Patent Owner fully incorporates same objections as those made for
`Exhibit 1006.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`¶¶ 16, 17, 30,
`38, 47, 55, 57,
`76, 88, and
`any other
`opinions
`regarding
`Exhibit 1010
`
`FRE 402: The expert relies on grounds (Exhibit 1010) that were not
`the basis upon which trial was instituted.
`FRE 403: The expert’s opinions on grounds (Exhibit 1010) that were
`not the basis upon which trial was instituted, if admitted, would
`merely confuse the issues in the trial.
`
`-2-
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00690
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Lack of Foundation: the exhibit has not been shown to be prior art or
`a printed publication.
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which trial
`was instituted.
`FRE 403: the exhibit, if admitted, would merely confuse the issues in
`the trial.
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, including, without
`limitation, any alleged publication date of Exhibit 1004.
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
` By: /Michelle E. Armond/
`Brenton R. Babcock (Reg. No. 39,592)
`Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
`Michelle E. Armond, (Reg. No. 53,954)
`Email: BoxSkyworks@knobbe.com
`Customer No. 20,995
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc
`(949) 760-0404
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Dated: November 6, 2014
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00690
`Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW is being served on November 6,
`
`2014, via electronic mail pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and with consent of
`
`Petitioner’s counsel of record, to Petitioner’s counsel of record:
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`Megan M. Gallant
`megan.gallant@ascendalaw.com
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 6, 2014
`
`
`19242048
`
`Weiguo Chen
`will.chen@finnegan.com
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`Stanford Research Park
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`
`Joshua Goldberg
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`
`
` /Michelle E. Armond/
`
` Brenton R. Babcock (Reg. No. 39,592)
` Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
` Michelle E. Armond, (Reg. No. 53,954)
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 5
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
