UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-0065i
`Patent 6,286,045 B 1
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-0065i
`Patent 6,286,045 B 1
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. hereby makes the following objections to the
`
`admissibility of documents submitted with Patent Owner's Preliminary Response.
`
`1. Google objects to AHBLT-2001 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBL T-2001 to show that "caching was essential to
`
`the growth of the web but a problem for on-line advertisers." (Paper 10,
`
`p. 6.) The document's authors are not under oath and are not subject to
`
`cross-examination in this proceeding. Because AHBL T -2001 is an out of
`
`court statement offered for its truth, and does not fall within any
`
`exception to the rule against hearsay, it is inadmissible hearsay. Also,
`
`AHBL T-2001 purports to quote analysts to show caching allegedly
`
`becoming an integral part ofthe Internet. (Paper 10, p. 6.) Thus, AHBLT-
`
`2001 contains hearsay within hearsay and no part of the combined
`
`statements conforms with an exception to the rule against hearsay.
`
`2. Google objects to AHBLT-2002 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2002 to show that the caching problem for
`
`advertisers allegedly was recognized. (Paper 10, p. 7.) The document's
`
`authors are not under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this
`
`proceeding. Because AHBLT-2002 is an out of court statement offered
`
`for its truth, and does not fall within any exception to the rule against
`
`hearsay, it is inadmissible hearsay. Also, AHBLT-2002 purports to quote
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`Matchlogic Inc. to show that Matchlogic "plans to introduce software
`
`that it [Matchlogic] says will solve the problem, allowing accurate counts
`
`of how many people see a Web ad." (Paper 10, p. 7.) AHBLT-2002
`
`further purports to quote Dick Bennett "agreeing that [Matchlogic]
`
`technology did what they were claiming it did" and quote Philip
`
`Guarascio saying the "technology is going to give us what we think is the
`
`most accurate headcount."
`
`(AHBLT-2002, p. 1.) Thus, AHBLT-2002
`
`contains hearsay within hearsay and no part of the combined statements
`
`conforms with an exception to the rule against hearsay.
`
`3. Google objects to AHBLT-2003 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBL T-2003 to show that MatchLogic' s technology
`
`allegedly raised the bar in terms of providing more complete activity
`
`reporting. (Paper 10, pp. 7-10.) The document's authors are not under
`
`oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this proceeding. Because
`
`AHBLT-2003 is an out of court statement offered for its truth, and does
`
`not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. Also, AHBLT-2003 purports to quote Michael Lavery to show
`
`MatchLogic allegedly raised the bar in terms of providing more complete
`
`activity reporting. (Paper 10, pp.7-8.) AHBLT-2003 further purports to
`
`quote Evan Neufeld to show TrueCount allegedly was widely adopted.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case TPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`(Paper 10, p. 8.) Thus, AHBLT-2003 contains hearsay within hearsay and
`
`no part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the
`
`rule against hearsay.
`
`4. Google objects to AHBLT-2004 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802),
`
`for lacking relevance given its 2013 copyright date (FRE 401, 402), and
`
`for lacking authentication (FRE 901). Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2004
`
`to show that Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) is a not-for-profit,
`
`voluntary organization consisting of publishers, advertisers and
`
`advertising agencies. (Paper 10, p. 8.) The document's authors are not
`
`under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Because AHBLT-2004 is an out of court statement offered for its truth,
`
`and does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay. And because AHBLT-2004 carries a copyright
`
`marking of 20 13, it lacks relevance as to how the Bureau operated at the
`
`time of its review of MatchLogic's technology in 1997. AHBLT-2004
`
`appears to be from the web site of an Indian organization "covering most
`
`of the major towns in India." (AHBLT-2004, p. 1.) AHBLT-2004 is an
`
`unauthenticated document and is not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Thus, AHBL T-2004 lacks authentication.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`5. Google objects to AHBLT-2005 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802)
`
`and for unfair prejudice (FRE 403). Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2005 to
`
`show that the NetGravity working draft allegedly described the invention
`
`ofthe '045 patent in detail. (Paper 10, p. 10.) The document's authors are
`
`not under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this
`
`proceeding. Because AHBLT-2005 is an out of court statement offered
`
`for its truth, and does not fall within any exception to the rule against
`
`hearsay, it is inadmissible hearsay. In addition, the probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, leading to
`
`confusion and waste of time.
`
`6. Google objects to AHBLT-2006 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802)
`
`and for unfair prejudice (FRE 403). Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2006 to
`
`show that the NetGravity proposal allegedly was adapted by the Internet
`
`Advertising Bureau (lAB) into a set of guidelines. (Paper 10, p. 10.) The
`
`document's authors are not under oath and are not subject to cross-
`
`examination in this proceeding. Because AHBL T -2006 is an out of court
`
`statement offered for its truth, and does not fall within any exception to
`
`the rule against hearsay, it is inadmissible hearsay. In addition, Patent
`
`Owner uses AHBL T -2006 to show that members of lAB allegedly
`
`included Google and DoubleClick. The probative value is substantially
`
`- 4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, leading to confusion and
`
`waste of time.
`
`7. Google objects to AHBLT-2007 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBL T-2007 to show that the content of an example
`
`CGI script allegedly will be cached. (Paper 10, pp.23-24.) The
`
`document's authors are not under oath and are not subject to cross-
`
`examination in this proceeding. Because AHBLT-2007 is an out of court
`
`statement offered for its truth, and does not fall within any exception to
`
`the rule against hearsay, it is inadmissible hearsay.
`
`8. Google objects to AHBLT-2008 for unfair prejudice (FRE 403). Patent
`
`Owner uses AHBL T -2008 to show that DoubleClick allegedly adopted
`
`the invention ofthe '045 patent by at least 2001. (Paper 10, pp. 10-11.)
`
`The probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, leading to confusion and waste of time.
`
`9. Google objects to AHBLT-2009 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802)
`
`and lack of authentication (FRE 901). The document's authors are not
`
`under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this proceeding.
`
`Because AHBL T -2009 is an out of court statement offered for its truth,
`
`and does not fall within any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Also, AHBLT-2009
`
`is an unauthenticated
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`document and is not self-authenticating under FRE 902. It carries no
`
`indication of its source or where Patent Owner obtained it from. Thus,
`
`AHBLT-2009 lacks authentication.
`
`10. Google objects to AHBLT-2012 for lack of relevance (FRE 401, 402).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2012
`
`to show that Google acquired
`
`DoubleClick in 2008. AHBLT-2012 is dated March 11, 2008, well past
`
`the alleged invention time of the '045 patent.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`Registration No. 54,179
`
`Michael V. Messinger
`Registration No. 37,575
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`Date: August 28, 2015
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above "OBJECTIONS TO
`
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)" was served in their
`
`entireties on August 28, 2015, via e-mail upon the following counsel of record for
`
`At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust:
`
`Garland Stephens (Lead Counsel)
`Justin Constant (Backup Counsel)
`WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, Texas 77002
`garland. stephens@weil. com
`justin. constant@weil.com
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 3 71-2600
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`
`~~ Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54, 179)
`
`Michael V. Messinger (Reg. No. 37,575)
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google 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
