`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Applicant:
`
`Dresti et al.
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc.
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`v.
`
`Filing Date: November 6, 2002
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc.
`
`Patent No.:
`
`7,831,930
`
`Trial Paralegal: Cathy Underwood
`
`Attorney Doc.: 059489.143600
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND
`METHOD FOR
`DISPLAYING A USER
`INTERFACE FOR A
`REMOTE CONTROL
`APPLICATION
`
`
`NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Universal Electronics,
`
`Inc. (“UEI”) hereby provides notice of its objections to Petitioner’s evidence, as
`
`follows:
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that this correspondence is being electronically filed with
`the USPTO on July 1, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Cynthia Tapia/
`By:
` Cynthia Tapia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930
`
`OBJECTION #1: – Petitioner’s Failure to Apprise the Board of Evidence
`Directly Contradicting Its Argument Regarding Mr. Cook’s Purported
`“Admission” Regarding the Meaning of to “Interact with” a Displayed
`Favorite Channel List
`
`UEI objects to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper Nos. 25 and 26) to the extent it
`
`attempts to characterize Mr. Cook’s testimony as an “admission” that to scroll
`
`through or view the example favorite channel list in Fig. 17a of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,831,930 (“the ’930 Patent”) are ways in which one could “interact with” the
`
`favorite channel list as recited in claim 1, without apprising the Board of Mr.
`
`Cook’s testimony that directly contradicts Petitioner’s position. (URC Reply at 3 –
`
`4.) Mr. Cook testified that in the context of claim 1, one cannot scroll through or
`
`view a favorite channel list to “interact with” the favorite channel list as recited in
`
`claim 1. (Ex. 1054 in IPR2014-01103 at 733-41.) Therefore, UEI objects to this
`
`characterization as violating Federal Rule of Evidence 106.
`
`OBJECTION #2: – Petitioner’s Failure to Apprise the Board of Evidence
`Directly Contradicting Its Argument Regarding Mr. Cook’s Purported
`“Admission” Realistic Allegedly Discloses that Channel Numbers Are
`Displayed on the Remote
`
`UEI objects to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper Nos. 25 and 26) to the extent it
`
`attempts to characterize Mr. Cook’s testimony as an “admission” that Realistic
`
`teaches that “a channel number from the favorite channel list is displayed when the
`
`favorite channel mode is active,” without apprising the Board of Mr. Cook’s
`
`testimony that directly contradicts Petitioner’s position (Petitioner Reply at 9 –
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930
`
`10.) Mr. Cook testified that the Realistic publication does not teach that a channel
`
`number is displayed on the remote when the favorite channel mode is active. (Ex.
`
`1052 at 729-32.) UEI objects to this characterization as violating Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 106.
`
`OBJECTION #3: – The Radio Shack and Los Angeles Times Articles, and
`Petitioner’s Discussion of Those Articles in Its Reply, Are Irrelevant and
`Untimely New Evidence and Arguments
`
`UEI objects to the Radio Shack and Los Angeles Times articles as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and untimely new evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See
`
`also Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48767 (August 14, 2012) (“A
`
`reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition. §
`
`42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a
`
`new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be
`
`returned.”) These articles are not relevant because they do not discuss the Realistic
`
`publication at issue in this trial. Instead, the Radio Shack and Los Angeles Times
`
`articles purport to discuss the Realistic remote, which is not at issue in this trial,
`
`nor can it be. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting the prior art that may be asserted in
`
`inter partes reviews to patents or printed publications). UEI likewise objects to the
`
`corresponding discussion in the Petitioner’s Reply, which is erroneous. (URC
`
`Reply at 24-25.) Furthermore, any information tending to prove that the Realistic
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01109
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930
`
`publication is indeed prior art to the ’930 Patent should have been submitted with
`
`the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Eric J. Maiers/
`
`
`By: Eric J. Maiers, Reg. No. 59,614
`James J. Lukas, Reg. No. 59,114
`Matthew J. Levinstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Rob R. Harmer, Reg. No. 68,048
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 1, 2015
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the below date, I caused the
`
`foregoing to be served upon the following counsel of record via electronic mail
`
`(with counsel’s agreement):
`
`Douglas A. Miro
`Keith Barkaus
`Jeannie Ngai
`Ostrolenk Faber LLP
`1180 Avenue of the Americas New
`York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 596-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 382-0888
`dmiro@ostrolenk.com
`kbarkaus@ostrolenk.com
`JNgai@ostrolenk.com
`
`Peter H. Kang, Reg. No. 40,350
`Theodore W. Chandler, Reg. No. 50,319
`Ferenc Pazmandi, Reg. No. 66,216
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1001 Page Mill Rd.
`Building One
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (65) 565-7100
`pkang@sidley.com
`tchandler@sidley.com
`fpazmandi@sidley.com
`urc@sidley.com
`
`July 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Cynthia Tapia
`Cynthia Tapia
`
`
`Date: