`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC., and COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2015-006351
`Patent 5,563,883
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS
` TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`1 Cox Communications, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2015-01796, has been joined
`as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1026-1029 ................................................................ 1
`II. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1030-1031 ................................................................ 2
`III. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT 1032 ............................................................................ 3
`IV. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1033-1034 ................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 at 6-7
`(PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) ................................................................................................ 3
`In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................. 1, 2
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....... 2
`
`
` Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ................................................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Fed. R. Evid. 902 ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.62 ............................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC (“C-Cation”) submits the following objections to Exhibits
`
`1026-1034 submitted by Arris Group, Inc. (“Arris” or “Petitioner”), and any
`
`reference to or reliance on the foregoing. As required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62, C-
`
`Cation’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`I.
`
`
`OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1026-1029
`
`Exhibit 1026 is described by Petitioner as “U.S. Patent No. 5,586,150 to
`
`Balasubramniam (filed Nov. 24, 1993; issued Dec. 17, 1996).” Exhibit 1027 is
`
`described by Petitioner as “U.S. Patent No. 5,276,905 to Hurst et al. (filed Feb. 7,
`
`1990; issued Jan. 4, 1994).” Exhibit 1028 is described by Petitioner as “U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,175,870 to Mabey et al. (filed Nov. 30, 1989; issued Dec. 29, 1992).”
`
`Exhibit 1029 is described by Petitioner as “EP 0 382 309 A1 (published Aug. 16,
`
`1990).” Petitioner alleges that these references either “cite” or “discuss” Exhibit
`
`1005 (MPT 1327) and are evidence that Exhibit 1005 is a “printed publication.”
`
`(Paper 38 at 4.)
`
`To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been
`
`sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d
`
`1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). “A given reference is
`
`‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d
`
`1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). A copyright date does
`
`not establish public accessibility. See Lister, 583 F.3d at 1316-17.
`
`C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibits 1026-1029 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802 as constituting inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been
`
`established to the extent it is offered by Petitioner to prove the truth of any matter
`
`asserted therein, including, e.g., the date of alleged publication for Exhibit 1005.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibits 1026-1029 as irrelevant pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, and, therefore, as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402
`
`and/or Fed. R. Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibits 1026-1029 are irrelevant for
`
`any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`II. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1030-1031
`Exhibit 1030 is described by Petitioner as “Michael Paetsch, Mobile
`
`Communications in the US and Europe: Regulation, Technology and Markets,
`
`277-324 (1993).” Exhibit 1031 is described by Petitioner as “E.A. Edis & J.E.
`
`Varrall, Newnes Telecommunications Pocket Book, 142-155 (1992).” Petitioner
`
`alleges that Exhibit 1030 “discusses MPT Specifications” without referencing
`
`anything specific, and further alleges that Exhibit 1031 is a “book stamped by
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Library of Congress on Oct. 19, 1992 mentioning MPT 1327 [Exhibit 1005] and
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`1343 [Exhibit 1006]).” (Paper 38 at 4-5.)
`
`C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibits 1030-1031 because
`
`Petitioner has not produced admissible evidence to authenticate the Exhibits as
`
`required under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) and has not produced admissible evidence
`
`to establish that these Exhibits are self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902.
`
` C-Cation further objects to the admission of Exhibit 1030-1031 under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802 as constituting inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been
`
`established to the extent it is offered by Petitioner to prove the truth of any matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., IPR2015-00369,
`
`Paper 14 at 6-7 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (stating that a library stamp was hearsay
`
`and concluding that Petitioner failed to establish that hearsay exception applied).
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibits 1030-1031 as irrelevant pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, and, therefore, as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402
`
`and/or Fed. R. Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibits 1030-1031 are irrelevant for
`
`any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`III. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT 1032
`Exhibit 1032 purports to be an FCC Order, and is described by Petitioner as
`
`“In the Matter of Technical Compatibility Protocol Standards for Equipment
`
`Operating in the 800 MHz Public Safety Bands, 4 FCC Rcd. 3874 (F.C.C. May 1,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`1989).” C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibit 1032 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`802 as constituting inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has been
`
`established to the extent it is offered by Petitioner to prove the truth of any matter
`
`asserted therein.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1032 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and, therefore, as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1032 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay
`
`purpose.
`
`IV. OBJECTION TO EXHIBITS 1033-1034
`Exhibit 1033 is a copy of “Infringement Contentions” served by C-Cation in
`
`prior litigation concerning the ’883 patent. Exhibit 1034 is entitled “Load
`
`Balancing, Dynamic Channel Change, and Dynamic Bonding Change on the Cisco
`
`CMTS Routers.” Petitioners rely on pages B-32 and B-51 of Exhibit 1033 and
`
`page 245 of Exhibit 1034 solely for the purpose of showing an alleged
`
`inconsistency between C-Cation’s position regarding “passive load balancing” and
`
`C-Cation’s position regarding the MPT Specifications. (Paper 38 at 16-17.) C-
`
`Cation objects to the admission Exhibits 1033 and 1034 as irrelevant under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and, therefore, as inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibits 1033 and 1034 are irrelevant for the purpose for
`
`which they are offered because they do not show any inconsistency. In fact,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Exhibits 1033 and 1034 show “passive load balancing” to be different in critical
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`respects from the process in the MPT Specifications on which Petitioners rely,
`
`among them being the fact that, unlike TSC in the MPT Specifications, the CMTS
`
`determines what signaling channels are acceptable and, based on its determination,
`
`dictates the specific channel that the requesting cable modem is permitted to use.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`/s/ Walter E. Hanley, Jr.
`Walter E. Hanley, Jr.
`whanley@kenyon.com
`Registration No. 28,720
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`
`
`David J. Kaplan
`djkaplan@kenyon.com
`Registration No. 57,117
`David J. Cooperberg
`dcooperberg@kenyon.com
`Registration No. 63,250
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`5
`
`Date: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 39
`Filed: February 16, 2016
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served via
`
`e-mail on February 16, 2016, in its entirety on the following:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`FOR ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`asommer@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-3817
`T: (202) 282-5000
`F: (202) 282-5100
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`FOR ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`jretsky@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 558-3791
`F: (312) 558-5700
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell (Reg. #39,389)
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta , GA 30309-4528 USA
`Telephone: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 541-3403
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`Michael J. Turton (Reg. #40,852)
`mturton@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta , GA 30309-4528 USA
`Telephone: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 541-3403
`
`
`/s/ Walter E. Hanley, Jr.
`
`Walter E. Hanley, Jr. (Reg. #28,720)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200