`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation,
`NetApp Inc. and
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-01207
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`Petitioners object to the admissibility of the Exhibits 2029, 2032, 2033,
`
`2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050,
`
`2051, 2052, 2058, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303,
`
`2304, 2306, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2317,
`
`2318, 2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, and 2324 filed by Patent Owner with its
`
`Response. These objections are being filed and served within 5 business days of
`
`service of the evidence and are therefore timely under 37 C.F.R. §42.64(b)(1).
`
`Petitioners file and serve these objections to provide notice that Petitioners may
`
`move to exclude these Exhibits under 37 C.F.R. §42.64(c).
`
` Exhibit 2029 (Markman Hearing Transcript)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2029 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`Patent Owner relies upon statements recorded within the transcript for their truth.
`
`The exhibit is irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential
`
`to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`Exhibit 2032 (Joint Claim Construction Brief)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2032 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`The exhibit is irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential
`
`to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`Exhibit 2033 (Dec. from Co-Pending Litigation)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2033 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`The exhibit is irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential
`
`to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`Exhibit 2034 (Special Master’s Markman Recommendation)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2034 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`The exhibit is irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential
`
`to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`Exhibits 2035 and 2036 (Awards)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibits 2035 and 2036 as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801. Additionally, the Patent Owner has failed to cite to either of these
`
`documents within its Response. Any potential relevance to the seemingly
`
`unimportant exhibits is outweighed by the potential for confusion (FRE 402, FRE
`
`403).
`
`Exhibit 2037 (ANSI SCSI Standard)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2037 because the exhibit has not been
`
`authenticated (FRE 901).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`Exhibit 2038 (1992 Article by Litigation Declarant)
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2038 because the exhibit is irrelevant and any
`
`potential relevance is outweighed by the potential to cause confusion (FRE 402,
`
`403). Patent Owner presents the exhibit to establish long felt need, however,
`
`provides no demonstration of lack of sufficient solutions towards the deficiencies
`
`of remote storage devices identified in the 1992 article from the time of publication
`
`of the article to the priority date of the claimed invention. Instead, hearsay Exhibit
`
`2029 is relied upon to present truth that nothing referred to as a “storage router”
`
`existed prior to the priority date of the claimed invention.
`
`Exhibits 2043-2046 (Declaration of Bianchi & Associated Exhibits)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2043, Exhibit 2044, Exhibit 2045, and Exhibit
`
`2046 because the exhibits are irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed
`
`by the potential to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403). Declarant Bianchi lacks
`
`personal knowledge regarding the data and events described within the declaration
`
`(FRE 602) rendering the declaration of Exhibit 2043 hearsay (FRE 801). Patent
`
`Owner presents the exhibits to establish commercial success. However, Patent
`
`Owner provides no demonstration of mapping between the product and the claimed
`
`invention, only referencing the importance of “access controls.” There is no
`
`indication that this product utilized NLLBP. Furthermore, Exhibit 2046 lacks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`authentication under FRE 901 for failing to identify dates of publication of the
`
`various product brochures.
`
`Exhibit 2047 (ANSI SCSI Standard)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2047 because the exhibit has not been
`
`authenticated (FRE 901).
`
`Exhibit 2048 (NFS Standard)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2048 because the exhibit has not been
`
`authenticated (FRE 901).
`
`Exhibits 2049-2052 (Declaration of Crane & Associated Docs)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2049, Exhibit 2050, Exhibit 2051, and Exhibit
`
`2052 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801. Further, Exhibit 2050, Exhibit 2051,
`
`and Exhibit 2052 have not been authenticated (FRE 901). Declarant Crane lacks
`
`personal knowledge (FRE 602) of the statements contained within the declaration
`
`of Exhibit 2049, having been employed by Crossroads after the date of a portion of
`
`the licensing agreements.
`
`The Schedule presented in Exhibit 2050, furthermore, presents nothing more
`
`than an improper incorporation by reference of argument, thereby skirting page
`
`limit requirements of the Patent Owner Response (CFR §42.6(a)(3)). Rather than
`
`presentation within a summary table, individual licensing agreement information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`should be presented within original form (FRE 1002). Any potential relevance of
`
`Exhibit 2050 is outweighed by the potential to cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`Exhibits 2058 and 2059
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2058 and Exhibit 2059 as lacking relevance
`
`(FRE 402). The Patent Owner has failed to cite to either of these documents
`
`within its Response. Any potential relevance to the seemingly unimportant
`
`exhibits is outweighed by the potential for confusion (FRE 403).
`
`Exhibit 2060 (Transcript of Katz Deposition)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2060 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`Patent Owner relies upon statements within the document for their truth. Further,
`
`the exhibit has not been authenticated (FRE 901). Additionally, the exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential to cause
`
`confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`Exhibits 2061-2064 (ANSI Standards)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibits 2061, 2062, 2063, and 2064 because the
`
`exhibits have not been authenticated (FRE 901). Petitioners also object to these
`
`exhibits as lacking relevance (FRE 402).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`Exhibits 2300-2304, 2306-2310, and 2312-2323 (Antedating Docs)
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2300, Exhibit 2301, Exhibit 2302, Exhibit 2303,
`
`Exhibit 2304, Exhibit 2306, Exhibit 2307, Exhibit 2308, Exhibit 2309, Exhibit
`
`2310, Exhibit 2312, Exhibit 2313, Exhibit 2314, Exhibit 2315, Exhibit 2316,
`
`Exhibit 2317, Exhibit 2318, Exhibit 2319, Exhibit 2320, Exhibit 2321, Exhibit
`
`2322, and Exhibit 2323 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE801. Further, the
`
`exhibits have not been properly authenticated (FRE 901). Exhibit 2324, the
`
`Bianchi Declaration, fails to present corroborating evidence for Exhibits 2303,
`
`2307, 2308, 2309, 2312, 2314,2 316, 2317, 2318, 2319, 2320, 2321, and 2323 due
`
`to lack of personal knowledge, having been hired by Crossroads after the critical
`
`period ended and failing to provide internal procedures existing during that period.
`
`Exhibits 2313 and 2322, additionally, are not an original (FRE 1002) or
`
`duplicate (FRE 1003) laboratory notebook excerpts, having such blurry
`
`reproduction that portions are illegible. Due to the lack of clarity of text, Exhibits
`
`2313 and 2322 are inadmissible as being misleading and apt to generate confusion
`
`(FRE 403).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`Exhibit 2311 (Chronology Table)
`
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2311 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE801.
`
`Patent Owner relies upon statements and dates recorded within, each of which
`
`references further unauthenticated documentation containing hearsay statements,
`
`for their truth. For example, Exhibit 2312, containing a single drawing with a
`
`most recent revision date of September 1997, is relied upon to demonstrate project
`
`development states as early as June without any proof of the state of the referenced
`
`drawing at any of the earlier marked dates. In another example, Exhibit 2316,
`
`marked with a copyright date of 1998, is presented to demonstrate revision 0.1 of
`
`August 21, 1997. Further, the exhibit has not been properly authenticated (FRE
`
`901). Any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential to cause confusion
`
`(FRE 402, 403). Furthermore, Exhibit 2311 involves improper incorporation by
`
`reference of Patent Owner argument, impermissibly expanding the page limit for
`
`Patent Owner Response. (CFR §42.6(a)(3)).
`
`Exhibit 2324 (Bianchi Declaration)
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2324 as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801.
`
`Patent Owner relies upon statements within the document for their truth in
`
`corroborating evidence supplied for antedating purposes. However, declarant
`
`Bianchi lacks personal knowledge of document management during the critical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`period, having been hired by Crossroads after that time (FRE 602). In addition,
`
`
`
`declarant Bianchi supplies no evidence of document management methods in place
`
`during the critical period. Any potential relevance is outweighed by the potential to
`
`cause confusion (FRE 402, 403).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
`22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`OBLON LLP
`
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella
`Reg. No. 46,045
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence
`IPR2014-01207
`USP 7,051,147
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence on the counsel of record for the Patent Owner
`
`by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as well as
`
`delivering a copy via electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`John Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James H. Hall
`WONG CABELLO
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella
`(Reg. No. 46,045)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
