UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00092
`Patent 6,546,002
`
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`Exhibit 2009
`IPR2015-00092
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00092
`Patent 6,546,002
`
`PATENT OWNER'S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`Exhibit 2009
`IPR2015-00092
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC hereby objects under the Federal
`
`Rules ofEvidence ("PRE") and 37 C.P.R. § 42.62 to the admissibility ofthe
`
`following evidence submitted by International Business Machines Corporation
`
`("Petitioner") in support of its petition for inter partes review pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Patent Owner serves Petitioner with these objections to provide
`
`notice that Patent Owner may move to exclude the challenged exhibits under 3 7
`
`C.P.R.§ 42.64(c) unless Petitioner cures the defects associated with the challenged
`
`exhibits identified herein.
`
`Exhibit 1001- Declaration of Henry A. Lieberman
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under PRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under PRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under PRE 403,
`
`because cited portions, specifically~~ 56, 170-182, 324-343, and 359-370 are not
`
`relevant to any issues remaining in this proceeding.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under PRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exception, including
`
`those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the declaration under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703.
`
`The declarant's testimony does not help the trier of fact understand the evidence or
`
`determine a fact in issue. The testimony is based on insufficient information. The
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`testimony is the product of unreliable principles and methods applied to the facts.
`
`Qualified experts in the relevant field would not reasonably rely upon the kinds of
`
`information alleged to support the declarant's opinion. Specifically,~~ 61-389,
`
`purportedly relating to the instituted grounds in this proceeding, consist of
`
`conclusory statements regarding the alleged prior art and unpatentability grounds.
`
`The testimony relies on improper evidence under FRE 401, 801, and 1002-1003 -
`
`as the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs any probative value that it may
`
`have. E.g., Lieberman Decl. ~~ 5, 49-55, 170-182, 324-343, and 359-370.
`
`Exhibit 1005- USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the assignment details listed on the face of the document, Patent Owner objects
`
`to such contents as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall
`
`under any exception, including those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. See Lieberman
`
`Decl. ~ 5.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`Exhibit 1006- Tristan Richardson, et al., Virtual Network Computing
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding.
`
`E.g., Petition at pp. 31-32, Lieberman Decl. ~~ 170-182.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the alleged teachings contained therein, Patent Owner objects to such contents
`
`as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any
`
`exception, including those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. E.g., Lieberman Decl. ~,!
`
`49-53.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`Exhibit 1007- Richardson Proof of Publication and Public Availability
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the date purportedly shown on the document, Patent Owner objects to such
`
`contents as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under
`
`any exception, including those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. Petition at p. 3.
`
`- 3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`Exhibit 1008- Mark Murray, et al., Effective Use of Individual User Profiles
`with Software Distribution
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issues remaining in this proceeding.
`
`E.g., Petition at pp. 52-55 and 58-59, Lieberman Decl. ~~ 324-343 and 359-370.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the alleged teachings contained therein, Patent Owner objects to such contents
`
`as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any
`
`exception, including those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. E.g., Lieberman Decl. ~~
`
`54-55.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`- 4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`Exhibit 1009- Murray Proof of Publication and Public Availability
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the date purportedly shown on the document, Patent Owner objects to such
`
`contents as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under
`
`any exception, including those ofFRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. Petition at p. 3.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Exhibit 1010- U.S. Patent No. 5,534,911 to Levitan
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because the document is not relevant to any issues remaining in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit 1015- Excerpt from File History U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00092
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`Exhibit 1016- Excerpt from File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`Exhibit 1017- Excerpt from File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,002
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exception to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those ofFRE 1004.
`
`These objections are made within 10 business days of the institution oftrial
`
`on April27, 2015.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`Date: May 11, 2015
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER'S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) was served electronically via e-mail on May 11, 2015, in its entirety
`
`on the following:
`
`Kenneth R. Adamo (Lead Counsel)
`Brent P. Ray (Back-up Counsel)
`Joel R. Merkin (Back-up Counsel)
`Eugene Goryunov (Back-up Counsel)
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`IBM_ IPR _ SERVICE@kirkland.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 50,633
`
`Date: May 11, 2015
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
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
