Paper No. _
`Filed: November 4, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC AND
`
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`V.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015—00059
`
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`PATENT OWNERS’S
`
`NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`Filed: November 4, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC AND
`
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`V.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015—00059
`
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`PATENT OWNERS’S
`
`NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l), Patent Owner California Institute of
`
`Technology (“Patent Owner”), submits the following objections to Petitioners’
`
`Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Hughes Communication, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`Exhibits 1074, 1075, and 1200; and renewed objections to Exhibits 1031, 1041,
`
`1042, 1057, and 1060, as listed in Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(“Reply”) served on October 28, 2015. As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent
`
`Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”).
`
`II.
`
`OBJECTION
`
`A.
`
`Objections to Ex. 1074, 1075, and 1200 and any Reference
`to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1074, “Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Henry
`
`Pfister”; Ex. 1075, “Excerpt of Dr. Robert McEliece’s Curricula Vitae”; and Ex.
`
`1200, “Exhibit from the Deposition of Dr. Golomb.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F.R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence) and/or
`
`F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of
`
`Time, or Other Reasons).
`
`Each of Exhibits 1074, 1075, and 1200 is offered in support of arguments
`
`improperly raised for the first time in Petitioners’ Reply. As such, each of these
`
`exhibits is not relevant to the instituted ground of review because any asserted facts
`
`to which the exhibit relates are of no consequence in determining this proceeding.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that any of these exhibits is determined to be relevant, the
`
`probative value of that exhibit is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice
`
`
`
`Case lPR2015—00O59
`
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`to Patent Owner, because Patent Owner is denied the opportunity to respond to the
`
`evidence and corresponding argument.
`
`B.
`
`Renewed Objections to EX. 1031, 1041, 1042, 1057, and 1060 and
`any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Patent Owner objects to Ex. 1031, “Viterbi and Viterbi, ‘New results on
`
`serial concatenated and accumulated—convolutional turbo code performance’ in
`
`Annales Des Telecommunications 1999”; Ex. 1041, “D. J. C. MacKay, ‘Gallager
`
`codes — Recent Results’ as published to http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/,
`
`under the filename ‘sparsecodes.ps.gz’ by July 16, 1999 (Published July 16, 1999)”;
`
`Ex. 1042, “D.J.C. Mackay, Abstract ‘Gallager Codes —~ Recent Results’ as
`
`published to http://vol.ra.phy.com.ac.wh/mackay/ under file name
`
`‘sparsecodes0.ps.gz by June 2, 1999”; Ex. 1057, “H. D. Pfister and P. H. Siegel,
`
`‘The serial concatenation of rate-1 codes through uniform random interleavers.’
`
`Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois,
`
`pp. 260-269, Sep. 1999 (‘Pfister’) (published no later than May 11, 2000 at the
`
`British Library Boston Spa)”; and paragraphs 30-33 of Ex. 1060, “Declaration of
`
`David J .C. Mackay.”
`
`Grounds for Objection: F .R.E. 401 (Test for Relevant Evidence) and/or
`
`F.R.E. 403 (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of
`
`Time, or Other Reasons).
`
`On May 11, 2015, Patent Owner objected to numerous exhibits, including
`
`Exhibits 1031, 1041, 1042, 1057, and paragraphs 13-38 and 40-83 of Exhibit 1060,
`
`as inadmissible under F.R.E. 401 and/or F.R.E. 403 based on failure to cite the
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR20l5—00059
`
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`exhibits in the petition that initiated this proceeding. Exhibits 1031, 1041, 1042,
`
`1057 and paragraphs 30-33 of Ex. 1060 are cited in Petitioners’ Reply in support of
`
`arguments improperly raised for the first time in the Reply. As such, each of these
`
`exhibits is not relevant to the instituted ground of review because any asserted facts
`
`to which the exhibit relates are of no consequence in determining this proceeding.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that any of these exhibits is determined to be relevant the
`
`probative value of that exhibit is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice
`
`to Patent Owner, because Patent Owner is denied the opportunity to respond to the
`
`evidence and corresponding argument. Accordingly, Patent Owner renews its
`
`objections to Exhibits 1031, 1041, 1042, 1057 and 1060, relying on the same
`
`grounds for objection as set forth in the original May 11, 2015 objections.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The above referenced exhibits were filed or first relied upon on October 28,
`
`2015. These objections are made within five business days of service of the
`
`exhibits (with respect to Exhibits 1074, 1075, and 1200) or service of the document
`
`first citing the exhibits (with respect to Exhibits 1031, 1041, 1042, 1057, and 1060).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: November 4, 2015
`
`/Michael T. Rosato/
`
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00059
`
`Patent 7,916,781
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Notice of Objection to Evidence, on this 4th day of
`
`November, 2015, by electronic service, on the Petitioners at the correspondence
`
`address of the Petitioners as follows:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`
`G. Hopkins Guy
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`hop.2uv(a7,bakerbotts.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: November 4, 2015
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato/
`
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`
`Reg. No. 52,182
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
