`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`AND
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2015-00635
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS IN THE RECORD AND
`PATENT OWNER’S USE OF THE EVIDENCE .......................................... 1
`III. GOVERNING LAW ....................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Rule Against Hearsay ..................................................................... 2
`B.
`Evidence of an Allegedly Inconsistent Statement Must Be
`Shown to the Witness to Be Admissible ............................................... 4
`The Requirement of Completeness ....................................................... 5
`C.
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Lipoff Report is Inadmissible Hearsay .......................................... 6
`1.
`The Lipoff Report is an Out of Court Statement ........................ 6
`2.
`The Lipoff Report Is Being Offered to Prove the Truth of
`What It Purportedly States .......................................................... 6
`The Lipoff Report Does Not Fall Under Any Exclusion
`or Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay ................................ 7
`To the Extent that Patent Owner Uses the Lipoff Report to
`Impeach Mr. Lipoff, Patent Owner’s Attempted Impeachment
`Is Improper Under the Federal Rules of Evidence ................................ 9
`The Lipoff Report Is Inadmissible Because It Is Incomplete ............. 11
`C.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Aetna, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
`No. 11-15346, 2015 WL 1646464 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2015) ........................... 3
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alexie v. United States,
`No. 3:05-cv-002997, 2009 WL 160354 (D. Alaska Jan. 21, 2009) ..................... 3
`
`Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Nomura Holding America, Inc.,
`No. 11cv6201, 2015 WL 539489 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2015) ................................ 3
`
`Foley v. Town of Lee,
`871 F. Supp.2d 39 (D.N.H. 2012) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States,
`101 Fed. Cl. 398 (2011) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`Mahnke v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
`821 F. Supp.2d 125 (D.D.C. 2011) ....................................................................... 3
`
`Sigler v. American Honda Motor Co.,
`532 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 3
`
`Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 10-11571-RWZ, 2015 WL 10015295 (D. Mass. Feb. 27, 2015) .............. 3, 8
`
`United States v. Elliott,
`771 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 4
`
`United States v. Green,
`556 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 4
`
`United States v. Hoffecker,
`530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 5, 11
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Charles T. McCormick, et al., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE
`§ 37 (7th ed., 2013) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106 ............................................................................................. 1, 5, 12
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 613(b) ..........................................................................................passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ..............................................................................................passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ..............................................................................................passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 ................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’883 patent
`
`Resp.
`
`the Lipoff Report
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Meaning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Patent Owner’s Ex. 2028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Petitioners move to exclude Exhibit 2028 (“the Lipoff Report”)—an expert
`
`report by Petitioners’ expert witness, Mr. Lipoff, from a litigation that Petitioners
`
`were not party to and that was intended to rebut certain positions taken by Patent
`
`Owner during that litigation. The Lipoff Report is inadmissible at least because (1)
`
`it is hearsay for which no exception applies, (2) it is being used in an improper
`
`attempt to impeach Mr. Lipoff’s credibility, and (3) it is incomplete because Patent
`
`Owner has redacted substantial portions from its text. See FED. R. EVID. 106,
`
`613(b), & 802. For the reasons below, Petitioners ask that their Motion to Exclude
`
`be granted and the Lipoff Report be excluded from evidence.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS IN THE RECORD AND
`PATENT OWNER’S USE OF THE EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner filed and served timely objections to the Lipoff Report on
`
`November 12, 2015. See Paper No. 31; 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Petitioners
`
`objected to the Lipoff Report on each ground raised in this Motion: (1)
`
`completeness under Fed. R. Evid. 106, Paper No. 31 at 2, (2) hearsay under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 802, id. at 3, and (3) improper impeachment under Fed. R. Evid. 613(b), id.
`
`Having raised each of these objections, Petitioners now move to exclude the Lipoff
`
`Report. An explanation of each of these objections is below.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Patent Owner relies on the objectionable exhibit at pages 21-22 and 36-37 of
`
`its Patent Owner Response. See Resp. at 21-22, 36-37.
`
`III. GOVERNING LAW
`The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of evidence in trials
`
`before the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) (“Except as otherwise provided in this
`
`subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply to a proceeding.”). The law
`
`underlying each of Petitioners’ objections that form the basis of this Motion is
`
`discussed in the sections that follow.
`
`A. The Rule Against Hearsay
`“Hearsay is not admissible” unless a federal statute, rule, or other rules
`
`prescribed by the Supreme Court make it admissible. FED. R. EVID. 802.
`
`“Hearsay” is a statement that “the declarant does not make while testifying at the
`
`current trial or hearing,” and “a party offers into evidence to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted in the statement.” FED. R. EVID. 801(c). A witness’s prior
`
`statement is not hearsay if “[t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross-
`
`examination about a prior statement,” and certain additional conditions are
`
`satisfied, including that the prior statement be made “under penalty of perjury at a
`
`trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1).
`
`Out of court statements by parties may be offered against the declarant provided
`
`certain criteria are met. See FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`“Application of the hearsay rule to exclude both parties’ experts [sic] reports
`
`is quite straightforward. The reports are out-of-court statements by witnesses
`
`offered for their truth and so fall within the definition of hearsay in Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801.” Alexie v. United States, No. 3:05-cv-002997, 2009 WL 160354 (D. Alaska
`
`Jan. 21, 2009). This is a commonly applied rule both in bench and jury trials. See,
`
`e.g., Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 486 (6th Cir. 2008); Aetna, Inc.
`
`v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., No. 11-15346, 2015 WL 1646464, *2 (E.D.
`
`Mich. Apr. 14, 2015) (“Generally, the written reports of expert witnesses prepared
`
`in anticipation of trial are inadmissible because they are considered hearsay.”);
`
`Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-11571-RWZ, 2015 WL 10015295,
`
`at *5 (D. Mass. Feb. 27, 2015) (holding that an expert’s “deposition and report are
`
`hearsay”); Fed. Housing Finance Agency v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc., No.
`
`11cv6201, 2015 WL 539489 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2015) (“In short, [the experts’]
`
`reports constitute inadmissible hearsay.”); Foley v. Town of Lee, 871 F. Supp.2d 39
`
`(D.N.H. 2012); Mahnke v. Wash. Metropolitan Area Transit Auth., 821 F. Supp.2d
`
`125 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Technically, medical reports prepared by experts and the CVs
`
`of expert witnesses are hearsay and are not admissible into evidence pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802.”); Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 398, 405
`
`(2011) (holding, in bench trial that “expert reports are inadmissible hearsay”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Evidence of an Allegedly Inconsistent Statement Must Be Shown
`to the Witness to Be Admissible
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`B.
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) limits the manner in which a witness may
`
`have their credibility impeached by an alleged prior inconsistent statement. That
`
`rule requires that such a prior statement “is admissible only if the witness is given
`
`an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an
`
`opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.” FED. R.
`
`EVID. 613(b). Thus, where a witness is not questioned about the allegedly prior
`
`inconsistent statement, those statements are excluded. See, e.g., United States v.
`
`Elliott, 771 F.2d 1046 (7th Cir. 1985) (“The court properly excluded the superior’s
`
`testimony on the ground that [the accused] had not been questioned about the
`
`remarks made to his superior.”); United States v. Green, 556 F.3d 151, 158 n.5 (3d
`
`Cir. 2009) (noting that while the “prosecution was “entitled to question [the
`
`accused] about his prior written statement during cross-examination, . . . the rule is
`
`explicit that in order to ‘prove up’ the content of the inconsistent statement, [the
`
`accused] must be confronted with it”); see also Charles T. McCormick, et al.,
`
`MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 37 (7th ed., 2013) (indicating that to introduce a
`
`witness’s prior inconsistent statement, “at some point in time—even after the
`
`introduction of the extrinsic evidence—the witness is afforded the chance to deny
`
`or explain the statement . . .”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`C. The Requirement of Completeness
`Federal Rule of Evidence 106 governs the admissibility of, among other
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`things, writings. The rule requires the completeness of a document when
`
`considering part of the document may be unfair. The rule provides:
`
`If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded
`statement, and adverse party may
`require
`the
`introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other
`writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to
`be considered at the same time.
`
`FED. R. EVID. 106. The rule seeks to avoid “misleading impression[s] created by
`
`taking matters out of context.” Id. (advisory committee’s note to proposed rules).
`
`To determine whether the admitted portion is necessary trial courts consider (1) the
`
`relevance of the omitted portion, (2) whether the omitted portion gives context to
`
`the portion in evidence, (3) whether the finder of fact will be misled, and (4)
`
`whether the omitted portions ensure a fair and impartial understanding of the
`
`evidence. See United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008). There is
`
`no requirement that portions that do not explain or are irrelevant to the admitted
`
`portions be admitted.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. The Lipoff Report is Inadmissible Hearsay
`1.
`The Lipoff Report is an Out of Court Statement
`Exhibit 2028 purports to be an “Expert Report of Stuart Lipoff Regarding
`
`Defendants’ Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 and Related Technical
`
`Matters,” from a now-settled matter involving Comcast, among others. See Ex.
`
`2028. Petitioners were not parties to that litigation, and did not retain Mr. Lipoff to
`
`render opinions in that matter. Id. at ¶ 2 (listing parties that had retained Mr.
`
`Lipoff). The Lipoff Report is not signed under penalty of perjury or under oath.
`
`See generally Ex. 2028. Statements in the Lipoff Report were not made while Mr.
`
`Lipoff testifying at a trial or hearing (let alone the current one). It thus meets the
`
`first prong of the hearsay definition. See FED. R. EVID. 801(c)(1).
`
`2.
`
`The Lipoff Report Is Being Offered to Prove the Truth of
`What It Purportedly States
`
`C-Cation offers the Lipoff Report to convince the Board to read a
`
`requirement that the “central controller” must perform the step recited in claim
`
`limitation 1(c). See Resp. at 36-37. As characterized by C-Cation, Mr. Lipoff’s
`
`statement was that “step (c) must be performed by the central controller.” Resp. at
`
`36. From this, C-Cation concludes that “Mr. Lipoff’s prior opinion necessarily
`
`rules out step (c) being performed by a remote terminal.” Id. at 37. C-Cation is
`
`thus using Mr. Lipoff’s alleged statement that “step (c) must be performed by the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`central controller” (using C-Cation’s paraphrasing of the Lipoff Report) in an
`
`attempt to prove that step 1(c) “must be performed by the central controller.”
`
`Resp. at 36. Therefore, Mr. Lipoff’s statement is being proffered in an attempt to
`
`prove what C-Cation characterizes the Lipoff Report as saying. Thus, the second
`
`prong of the hearsay definition is also met; C-Cation has “offer[ed] [it] in evidence
`
`to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” FED. R. EVID. 801
`
`(c)(2).
`
`C-Cation offers the report for another hearsay purpose: to try to prove that
`
`Mr. Lipoff has taken an inconsistent position in the past.1 See, e.g., Resp. at 21-22.
`
`Even if this form of attempted impeachment were proper under the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence (it is not, as we show below), this too is offering the Lipoff Report to
`
`prove the truth of what it purportedly states. Thus, all proffered uses of the Lipoff
`
`Report fall within the definition of hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), and should
`
`be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`3.
`
`The Lipoff Report Does Not Fall Under Any Exclusion or
`Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
`
`Moreover, the Lipoff Report does not fall within any of the exclusions or
`
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay. First, it does not fall under Rule 801(d)(1)’s
`
`
`1 In so doing, C-Cation resorts to misquoting the Lipoff Report. Compare Resp. at
`
`21 with Ex. 2028, ¶ 365.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`exclusion regarding prior statements because Mr. Lipoff was not “subject to cross-
`
`examination about” the prior statement. Instead, C-Cation’s counsel merely
`
`referred to prior opinions and asked vague questions about whether Mr. Lipoff
`
`believed he had been consistent between earlier opinions and those in his
`
`declaration. See Ex. 2027 at 25:23-28:5. If not, C-Cation’s counsel posited, did
`
`Mr. Lipoff believe it “would be important to tell the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board” about any inconsistencies? Id. This vague reference to prior opinions is
`
`not a proper cross-examination about alleged inconsistent statements. Nor was Mr.
`
`Lipoff’s statement from the Lipoff Report: (1) “given under penalty of perjury,” as
`
`required by Fed. R. Evid 801(d)(1)(A); or (2) offered to rebut a charge of recent
`
`fabrication or improper influence, or to rehabilitate credibility, or to identify a
`
`person as someone that Mr. Lipoff perceived earlier under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(d)(1)(B) or (C). Mr. Lipoff’s statement is also not an admission of a party
`
`opponent. See Skyhook Wireless, 2015 WL 10015295, at *5; FED. R. EVID.
`
`801(d)(2).
`
`Moreover, the Lipoff Report does not fall within any exception to the rule
`
`against hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 803. As an alleged opinion about what is
`
`encompassed by a claim and what is not, it is not a present sense impression, an
`
`excited utterance, a statement about mental, emotional, or physical condition, a
`
`statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment, or a record of a regularly
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`conducted activity. See FED. R. EVID. 803(1)-(6). Nor is it being offered as
`
`evidence of the absence of a record of a regularly conducted activity. Id. at 803(7).
`
`The Lipoff Report is not a public record, evidence of the absence of a public
`
`record, a record of a religious organization concerning personal or family history, a
`
`family record, a record in a document that affects an interest in property, of a
`
`statement in such a document. Id. at 803(8)-(15). Finally, it is not itself a
`
`statement in an ancient document, a market report or commercial publication, a
`
`statement in a learned treatise, evidence of reputation or family history, evidence
`
`of reputation regarding boundaries or character, or evidence of a prior judgment of
`
`any kind. Id. at 803(16)-(23). Therefore, none of the exceptions to the rule against
`
`hearsay apply.
`
`Given the foregoing, the Board should exclude the Lipoff Report because it
`
`is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`B.
`
`To the Extent that Patent Owner Uses the Lipoff Report to
`Impeach Mr. Lipoff, Patent Owner’s Attempted Impeachment Is
`Improper Under the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`To the extent that C-Cation is using the Lipoff Report to try to impeach Mr.
`
`Lipoff’s credibility, see Resp. at 21-22, the Lipoff Report should not be admissible
`
`for that purpose either. C-Cation failed to follow Fed. R. Evid. 613(b), making C-
`
`Cation’s attempted impeachment improper.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding vague references
`
`to
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`the Lipoff Report during his
`
`deposition, Mr. Lipoff was not presented with any statement made in his prior
`
`expert report or given an opportunity to address such statements during his
`
`deposition. See Ex. 2027 at 25:23-28:5. In fact, during a brief discussion about his
`
`prior report, Mr. Lipoff testified that “if there were unexplained inconsistencies
`
`[between his prior report and his declaration] it could be of interest to [the Board]
`
`to understand if there are sound reasons behind them versus some other reason.”
`
`Id. at 28:2-5. But, because C-Cation’s counsel never presented Mr. Lipoff with
`
`any specific statement from the earlier report during cross-examination, Mr. Lipoff
`
`was never given the opportunity to explain the statement, contrary to the rule. See
`
`FED. R. EVID. 613(b) (“Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent
`
`statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or
`
`deny the statement . . . .”). C-Cation’s approach to “impeachment” here is
`
`tantamount to “trial by ambush.” C-Cation deprived Mr. Lipoff of any opportunity
`
`to explain his statements from his expert report, and, as shown below, has redacted
`
`portions which could inform the meaning of the statement C-Cation relies upon.
`
`Since Mr. Lipoff was never confronted with any specific statement he
`
`allegedly made in the Lipoff Report, it is not admissible for C-Cation’s attempted
`
`impeachment of Mr. Lipoff’s credibility under Rule 613(b) and it should be
`
`excluded for this additional reason.
`
`10
`
`
`
`C. The Lipoff Report Is Inadmissible Because It Is Incomplete
`To the extent that the foregoing reasons are found insufficient to exclude the
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Lipoff Report, it should be excluded because it is incomplete in that it is heavily
`
`redacted. Indeed, Patent Owner redacted entire sections of the report that may be
`
`needed to give context to the single paragraph that Patent Owner relies upon in its
`
`response. See Ex. 2028, ¶¶ 73, 83, 97-99, 115, 121, 150-54, 156-64, 170, 185,
`
`193-94, 211-14, 217-20, 224-25, 228, 231-41, 248, 251, 253-55, 261-62, 265, 277,
`
`282, 294-98, 302-03, 307, 312-15, 321-22, 333-36, 340, 343-63.
`
`Because of the heavy redactions to this material, Patent Owner has deprived
`
`the Board and Petitioners of the ability to determine whether any of the material
`
`omitted from the Lipoff Report bears on the statement that Patent Owner cherry-
`
`picked from its text. Patent Owner’s redactions prevent Petitioners from
`
`demonstrating that the omitted portions are relevant to the portion of the Lipoff
`
`Report that Patent Owner relies upon, and whether those omitted portions are
`
`necessary to give context to the statement Patent Owner has used. And since
`
`substantial portions of the Lipoff Report are missing, it is impossible to tell
`
`whether it is being used in a misleading manner, or whether the omissions prevent
`
`a fair presentation of the evidence. See United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137
`
`(3d Cir. 2008).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Since C-Cation has redacted substantial portions of the Lipoff Report, C-
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Cation cannot make a proffer to show that the redacted portions will not prejudice
`
`Petitioners. And, Petitioners cannot say precisely what has been redacted since C-
`
`Cation has not provided an unredacted copy. It is, therefore, appropriate to impose
`
`upon C-Cation the burden of showing that the omitted portions are irrelevant to the
`
`opinions that it relies upon in its Response.
`
`In addition to excluding Exhibit 2028 under Fed. R. Evid. 802 and 613(b),
`
`therefore, it should also be excluded as incomplete under Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Exhibit 2028 should be granted because the
`
`Lipoff Report (1) is hearsay for which no exception applies, see Fed. R. Evid. 802,
`
`(2) is being used in an improper attempt to impeach Mr. Lipoff’s credibility under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 613(b), and (3) is incomplete due to Patent Owner’s redactions, see
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Andrew R. Sommer
`
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`T: (202) 282-5000
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky (Reg. No. 34,415)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`T: (312) 558-5600
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner ARRIS Group,
`Inc.
`
`/s/ Michael J. Turton
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Michael J. Turton
`Reg. No. 40,852
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
`LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`T: (404) 815-6500
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Cox
`Communications, Inc.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Dated: March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`§ 42.6(e)—CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with § 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on the 21st
`
`day of March 2016, the above PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE was
`
`served, via electronic mail upon the following counsel for Patent Owner,
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer
`(Reg. No. 53,932)
`Counsel for Petitioner ARRIS Group,
`Inc.
`
`Walter E. Hanley, Jr.
`whanley@kenyon.com
`
`Sheila Mortazavi
`smortazavi@kenyon.com
`
`Merri Moken
`MMoken@kenyon.com
`
`Dated: March 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`1