IPR2015-00635
`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
`
`
`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.
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
