`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`NETAPP INC. AND
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01207
`Patent 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner submits the following
`
`objections to certain evidence relied upon by Petitioner in its Reply Brief.
`
`I.
`
`Objections to Exhibits 1224, 1225, and 1226
`
`Patent Owner objects to exhibits 1224, 1225, and 1226 under FRE 401 and
`
`402 on the grounds that they are irrelevant. Preliminary infringement allegations
`
`are irrelevant and it is improper to construe claims with respect to accused
`
`instrumentalities, which appears to be the purpose of these exhibits. Furthermore,
`
`exhibit 1226 is not alleged to be prior art nor alleged to relate to instituted prior art.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to exhibits 1224, 1225, and 1226 because, if
`
`they were otherwise relevant, they would constitute unauthorized supplemental
`
`information that does not comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`Furthermore, these exhibits are not responsive to any allegation made in Patent
`
`Owner’s response, and are therefore improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). To the
`
`extent that Petitioners intend to rely on an analogy between these exhibits and the
`
`alleged prior art, such arguments, or any other arguments based on these exhibits,
`
`should have been made in the original petition, as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(a).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit 1230
`Patent Owner objects to exhibit 1230 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 because it
`
`constitutes uncompelled direct testimony that has not been submitted in the form of
`
`an affidavit.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1230 under FRE 401 and 402 on the
`
`grounds that it is irrelevant. Exhibit 1230 purports to be a document from
`
`December 2002, which is well after any relevant time period.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to exhibit 1230 under FRE 802 on the grounds
`
`that it constitutes inadmissible hearsay that does not fall under an exception.
`
`Petitioners’ rely on exhibit 1230 for the truth of the matters asserted, namely that
`
`“[d]espite its superior performance as a networked storage topology in SANs and
`
`storage fabric applications, Fibre Channel has not seen wide adoption as a native
`
`hard drive interface.”
`
`Petitioner further objects to exhibit 1230 under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not produced evidence sufficient to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John L. Adair/
`John L. Adair
`Registration No. 48,828
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service of Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.64(b)(1), on August 28, 2015 on counsel for Petitioner by
`e-mail pursuant to agreement at the following addresses:
`
`
`Greg Gardella
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`Oblon
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
` /John L. Adair /
`John L. Adair
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
