throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`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:

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket