`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case : IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent 5,563,883
`
`Before the Honorable KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Petitioner ARRIS Group, Inc., hereby submit the
`
`following objections to Patent Owner C-CATION Technologies, LLC’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) Exhibits 2001-2010, and any reference to/reliance on the foregoing. As
`
`required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62, Petitioners’ objections below apply the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2001
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2001
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2001, a document titled “C-CATION
`
`Technologies, LLC’s Proposed Discovery Requests to ARRIS Group, Inc.,” is
`
`objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2001 does not make any fact
`
`relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less probable and
`
`any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no consequence in
`
`determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of
`
`Exhibit 2001 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2002
`II.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2002
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2002, a document titled “Complaint,” and
`
`allegedly filed in connection with an action styled C-Cation Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-30 (E.D. Tex.), is objected to under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2002 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds
`
`upon which trial was instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be
`
`established based on this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on
`
`which trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2002 would
`
`further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2003
`III.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2003
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2003, a document that is allegedly a copy of
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc.’s FORM 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, is
`
`objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 408. Exhibit 2003 does not make
`
`any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less
`
`probable and any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no
`
`consequence in determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction
`
`and evaluation of Exhibit 2003 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a
`
`waste of time.
`
`Additionally, the use of statements regarding any settlement of any
`
`indemnity claim that may have been made by Comcast against ARRIS in an effort
`
`to prove that Comcast had a valid claim for indemnification against ARRIS is
`
`prohibited by Fed. R. Evid. 408(a), and does not fall within an exception under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 408(b).
`
`IV.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2004
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2004
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2004, a document titled “Scheduling and
`
`Discovery Order,” and allegedly entered in connection with an action styled C-
`
`Cation Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-30-MHS-CMC
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`(E.D. Tex.), is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2004 does not
`
`make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less
`
`probable and any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no
`
`consequence in determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction
`
`and evaluation of Exhibit 2004 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a
`
`waste of time.
`
`V.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2005
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2005
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2005, a document titled “Defendant Comcast
`
`Cable’s Supplemental Initial Disclosures,” and allegedly served in connection with
`
`an action styled C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-
`
`cv-30-MHS-CMC (E.D. Tex.), is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, 802,
`
`and 901. Exhibit 2005 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which
`
`trial was instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established
`
`based on this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on which trial
`
`was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2005 would further lead to
`
`undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2005 is further objectionable in that it constitutes hearsay under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802, to which no exception applies. Moreover, Exhibit 2005 has not been
`
`authenticated as required by Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`VI.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2006
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2006
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2006, a press release titled “ARRIS Acquires
`
`Motorola Home: Creates Premier Video Delivery and Broadband Technology
`
`Company,” is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2006 does not
`
`make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less
`
`probable and any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no
`
`consequence in determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction
`
`and evaluation of Exhibit 2006 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a
`
`waste of time.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2007
`VII.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2007
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2007, a document titled “Corporate Terms
`
`and Conditions of Sale,” and allegedly obtained from ARRIS’s website, is objected
`
`to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2007 does not make any fact relevant
`
`to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less probable and any facts
`
`that might be established based on this exhibit is of no consequence in determining
`
`the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit
`
`2007 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2009
`VIII.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2009
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2009, titled “Expert Report of Stuart Lipoff
`
`Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883,” served in C-cation Tech.,
`
`LLC v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:11-cv-30, and dated august 16, 2013 is objected to
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, and 802. Exhibit 2009 does not make any fact
`
`relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less probable and
`
`any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no consequence in
`
`determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of
`
`Exhibit 2009 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`Moreover, Exhibit 2009 constitutes hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802, to which no
`
`exception applies.
`
`IX.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2010
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2010
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2010, a document titled “First Amended
`
`Complaint,” and allegedly filed in connection with an action styled C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-30 (E.D. Tex.) and
`
`identified by document number 45, is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 2010 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was
`
`instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established based on
`
`this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on which trial was
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2010 would further lead to undue
`
`delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`X.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2011
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2011
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2011, a document titled “Stipulation of
`
`Dismissal,” and allegedly filed in connection with an action styled C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-30 (E.D. Tex.) and
`
`identified by document number 387, is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`403. Exhibit 2011 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial
`
`was instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established based
`
`on this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on which trial was
`
`instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2011 would further lead to undue
`
`delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`XI.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2012
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2012
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2012, a document titled “C-Cation’s
`
`Complaint,” and allegedly filed in connection with an action styled C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC v. time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-59 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`and dated February 4, 2014, is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 2012 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established based on
`
`this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on which trial was
`
`instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2012 would further lead to undue
`
`delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2014
`XII.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2014
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2014, a document titled “Plaintiff C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions,” allegedly served in connection with an action styled C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-30-MHS-CMC (E.D.
`
`Tex.), is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 106, 401, 403, 802, and 901. Exhibit
`
`2014 is objected to the extent that it constitutes a portion of a writing and omits
`
`documents that are incorporated by reference into that document. Additionally,
`
`Exhibit 2014 does not make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was
`
`instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established based on
`
`this exhibit is of no consequence in determining the issues on which trial was
`
`instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2014 would further lead to
`
`undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`Exhibit 2014 is further objectionable in that it constitutes hearsay under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802, to which no exception applies. Moreover, Exhibit 2014 has not been
`
`authenticated as required by Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 2013 & 2015-2017
`XIII.
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 2013, 2015-2017
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibits 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017 constitute
`
`confidential commercial agreements and are objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401
`
`and 403. None of these exhibits make any fact relevant to the grounds upon which
`
`trial was instituted more or less probable and any facts that might be established
`
`based on these exhibits are of no consequence in determining the issues on which
`
`trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of Exhibit 2013, 2015, 2016, and
`
`2017, both individually and in aggregate, would further lead to undue delay,
`
`confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`XIV.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2018
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2018
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2018, a document that is allegedly a copy of
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc.’s FORM 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, is
`
`objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2018 does not make any fact
`
`relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less probable and
`
`any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no consequence in
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction and evaluation of
`
`Exhibit 2018 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a waste of time.
`
`XV.
`
` OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2019
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 2019
`
`Grounds for objection: Exhibit 2019, a document that is a schedule of
`
`redacted documents and documents withheld from production, dated March 6,
`
`2015, is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Exhibit 2019 does not make
`
`any fact relevant to the grounds upon which trial was instituted more or less
`
`probable and any facts that might be established based on this exhibit is of no
`
`consequence in determining the issues on which trial was instituted. Introduction
`
`and evaluation of Exhibit 2019 would further lead to undue delay, confusion, and a
`
`waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`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 10th
`
`day of August 2015, the above PETITIONER’S FIRST SET OF
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS was served, via
`
`electronic mail upon the following counsel for Patent Owner,
`
`Lewis V. Popoviski
`lpopoviski@kenyon.com
`
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`jginsberg@kenyon.com
`
`David J. Kaplan
`djkaplan@kenyon.com
`
`David J. Cooperberg
`dcooperberg@kenyon.com
`
`Dated: August 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`12
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer
`(Reg. No. 53,932)
`Counsel for Petitioner ARRIS Group,
`Inc.