Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`
`
`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
`Patent 5,563,883
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS
` TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIITS 1005-1007 ............................................................... 1
`
`II. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1010 .......................................................................... 4
`
`III. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1014 .......................................................................... 4
`
`IV. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1015 .......................................................................... 5
`
`V. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1017 .......................................................................... 6
`
`VI. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1018 .......................................................................... 7
`
`VII.OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1019 .......................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., No. 03-8749,
`
` 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100800, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) .................... 3
`
`In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 2
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361, 1381, (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............ 3
`
`Nordock Inc. v. Systems Inc., No. 11-C-118,
` 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34661, at *7 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2013) ........................ 3
`
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
` 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 2
`
`St. Clair v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, Inc.,
` 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999) ............................................................... 5
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, Case IPR2013-00417,
`
` slip op. at 11–18 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2015) (Paper 78) ............................................... 3
`
`United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2000) ......................................... 5
`
`
`
` Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .................................................................................................. passim
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 .................................................................................................. passim
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .................................................................................................. passim
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ................................................................................................... passim
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) .......................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6
`Fed. R. Evid. 902 ............................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6
`
`
`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. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner C-Cation
`
`Technologies, LLC (“C-Cation”) submits the following objections to Exhibits
`
`1005-1007, 1010, 1014-1015 and 1017-1019 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 EXHIBIITS 1005-1007
`
`Petitioner alleges that Exhibits 1005-1007 constitute prior art to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883 patent”). Paper 2 at 5, 16-17. Exhibit 1005 bears the
`
`title “MPT 1327: A Signalling Standard for Trunked Private Land Mobile Radio
`
`Systems.” Exhibit 1006 bears the title “MPT 1343: Performance Specification;
`
`System Interface Specification for radio units to be used with commercial
`
`trunked networks operating in Band III sub-bands 1 and 2.” Exhibit 1007 bears
`
`the title “MPT 1347: Radio interface specification; For commercial trunked
`
`networks operating in Band III, sub-bands 1 and 2.”
`
`C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibits 1005-1007 because
`
`Petitioner has not produced admissible evidence to authenticate these 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.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`C-Cation further objects to the admission of Exhibits 1005-1007 under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 as constituting inadmissible hearsay for which no exception has
`
`been established to the extent they are offered by Petitioner to prove the truth of
`
`any matter asserted therein, including, e.g., date of publication.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibits 1005-1007 as irrelevant pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403. 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). “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 and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate
`
`it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Since Petitioner has not provided admissible evidence to establish when,
`
`if ever, Exhibits 1005-1007 were disseminated or otherwise made available such
`
`that they could be located by persons of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable
`
`diligence, Exhibits 1005-1007 do not qualify as prior art to the ’883 patent.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1005-1007 are irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403. See, e.g., Nordock Inc. v.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Systems Inc., No. 11-C-118, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34661, at *7 (E.D. Wis.
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Mar. 13, 2013) (“Because insufficient evidence has been presented regarding
`
`the dates of the two publications, they are not admissible as prior art and
`
`Nordock’s motion to exclude ‘undated’ and ‘unpublished’ references from
`
`evidence as asserted ‘prior art’ references is granted.”); Amini Innovation Corp.
`
`v. Anthony California, Inc., No. 03-8749, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100800, at
`
`*19 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) (“Without knowing the publication dates, the
`
`documents are not admissible as prior art.”); In re Omeprazole Patent
`
`Litigation, 536 F.3d 1361, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming finding that
`
`company brochures were not proven to be printed publications without evidence
`
`of distribution practices before the critical date);
`
`Further, besides constituting inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802, the purported “Crown Copyright,” “[f]irst published” and “[r]eprinted”
`
`dates contained in Exhibits 1005-1007 do not establish a date of actual
`
`publication. See Synergystex Int’l, Inc., No. 92-3307, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`5301, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1994) (“the June 1989 notation on the manual’s
`
`cover does not identify the date in June 1989 on which the manual was
`
`published, or if the manual was actually published in June 1989”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`II. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1010
`Exhibit 1010 bears the title “Radiocommunications Agency: 91-92 Annual
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Report.” C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibit 1010 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.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1010 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1010 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`III. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1014
`Exhibit 1014 bears the title “Emerging Public Safety Wireless
`
`Communications Systems.” C-Cation objects to the admission of Exhibit 1014
`
`because Petitioner has not produced admissible evidence to authenticate the
`
`Exhibit as required under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) and has not produced admissible
`
`evidence to establish that this Exhibit is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`902.
`
` C-Cation further objects to the admission of Exhibit 1014 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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1014 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1014 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`IV. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1015
`Exhibit 1015 is described by Petitioner as “Radiocommunications Agency
`
`Home Page (last visited 1/28/2015).” (Paper 14 at 2). C-Cation objects to the
`
`admission of Exhibits 1015 because Petitioner has not produced admissible
`
`evidence to authenticate the Exhibit as required under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) and
`
`has not produced admissible evidence to establish that this Exhibit is self-
`
`authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902.
`
` C-Cation further objects to the admission of Exhibit1015 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., United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir.
`
`2000) (finding web postings from the Internet to be inadmissible hearsay); St. Clair
`
`v. Johnny’s Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (S.D. Tex. 1999)
`
`(“[A]ny evidence procured off the Internet is adequate for almost nothing, even
`
`under the most liberal interpretation of the hearsay exception rules . . . .”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1015 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1015 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`V. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1017
`Exhibit 1017 purports to be a thesis by Thomas Farrell (Ex. 1017 at 2) and is
`
`described by Petitioner as “Thomas Farrell, ‘A Computer Simulation Analysis of
`
`Convention and Trunked Land Mobile Radio Systems at Wright Patterson Air
`
`Force Base’ (Jan. 19, 1989)” (Paper 14 at 2). C-Cation objects to the admission
`
`of Exhibit 1017 because Petitioner has not produced admissible evidence to
`
`authenticate the Exhibit as required under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) and has not
`
`produced admissible evidence to establish that this exhibit is self-authenticating
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 902.
`
`C-Cation further objects to the admission of Exhibit1017 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.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1017 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1017 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`VI. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1018
`Exhibit 1018 is described by Petitioner as “International Application
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Publication No. WO 93/16566 (Aug. 19, 1993).” (Paper 14 at 2). C-Cation objects
`
`to the admission of Exhibit1018 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.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1018 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1018 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`VII. OBJECTION TO EXHIBIIT 1019
`Exhibit 1019 is described by Petitioner as “International Application
`
`Publication No. WO 93/16530 (Aug. 19, 1993).” (Paper 14 at 2). C-Cation objects
`
`to the admission of Exhibit1019 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.
`
`Further, C-Cation objects to Exhibit 1019 as irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and/or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In particular, Exhibit 1019 is irrelevant for any non-hearsay purpose.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Date: August 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Lewis V. Popovski
`Lewis V. Popovski
`lpopovski@kenyon.com
`Registration No. 37,423
`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:
`
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
`jginsberg@kenyon.com
`Registration No. 36,148
`
`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
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served via e-
`
`mail on August 14, 2015, in its entirety on the following:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`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
`
`
`Jonathan E. Retsky
`jretsky@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 558-3791; F: (312) 558-5700
`
`
`
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`/s/ David J. Kaplan
`David J. Kaplan
`Registration No. 57,117
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: August 14, 2015
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served via e-
`
`mail on August 14, 2015, in its entirety on the following:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`P. Andrew Riley (Reg. No. 66,290)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Email: C-Cation_IPR@finnegan.com
`Phone: (202) 408-4266 Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Email: C-Cation_IPR@finnegan.com
`Phone: (202) 408-6092
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518)
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Phone: (650) 999-0455
`Fax: (650) 887-0349
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`Linda J. Thayer (Reg. No. 45,681)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 022210
`Email: C-Cation_IPR@finnegan.com
`Phone: (617) 646-1680
`Fax: (617) 646-1666
`
`Rachel L. Emsley (Reg. No. 63,558)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 022210
`Email: C-Cation_IPR@finnegan.com
`Phone: (617) 646-1624
`Fax: (617) 646-1666
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00635
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Filed: August 14, 2015
`
`
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`/s/ David J. Kaplan
`David J. Kaplan
`Registration No. 57,117
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: August 14, 2015
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200