UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-006571
`Patent 6,286,045 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2015-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-006571
`Patent 6,286,045 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2015-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. hereby makes the following objections to the
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`
`
`admissibility of documents submitted with Patent Owner’s Response (POR).
`
`(Paper 24.)
`
`1. Google objects to AHBLT-2015 under FRE 403. AHBLT-2015 is
`
`cumulative of the POR. The probative value of his testimony is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence. Google also objects to AHBLT-2015 under FRE 702 and 703
`
`because the declaration includes statements and testimony not based on
`
`scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. These statements
`
`and testimony are based on insufficient facts or data, and is not the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods. Further, the relied upon facts
`
`and data are not those on which experts in this field would reasonably
`
`rely.
`
`2. Google objects to AHBLT-2016 and its Exhibits A-C under FRE 403.
`
`Declarant Mr. Griffiths is the first named inventor of the ’045 patent. The
`
`probative value of his uncorroborated
`
`testimony
`
`is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, leading to confusion and
`
`waste of time. Google also objects to AHBLT-2016 under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.65 because the declaration includes expert testimony that does not
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based.
`
`Google further objects to AHBLT-2016 under FRE 702 and 703 because
`
`the declaration includes statements and testimony not based on scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge. These statements and
`
`testimony are based on insufficient facts or data, and is not the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods. Further, the relied upon facts and data
`
`are not those on which experts in this field would reasonably rely.
`
`3. Google objects to Ex. A of AHBLT-2016 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE
`
`801, 802). The document’s authors are not under oath and are not subject
`
`to cross-examination in this proceeding. Because Ex. A of AHBLT-2016
`
`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,
`
`Ex. A of AHBLT-2016 purports to quote 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.” (AHBLT-2016 at Ex. A.) Ex. A of AHBLT-2016 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-2016 at Ex. A.) Thus, Ex. A of AHBLT-2016
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`contains hearsay within hearsay and no part of the combined statements
`
`conforms with an exception to the rule against hearsay. Google also
`
`objects to Ex. A of AHBLT-2016 under FRE 403 at least because Ex. A
`
`of AHBLT-2016 is duplicative of AHBLT-2002. The probative value of
`
`this exhibit is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence. Google further objects to Ex. A of AHBLT-2016
`
`under FRE 401 and 402. Exhibit A is irrelevant because it provides no
`
`relationship between the referenced Matchlogic, Inc. software and the
`
`’045 patent claims.
`
`4. Google objects to Ex.B of AHBLT-2016 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE
`
`801, 802). Patent Owner uses Ex.B of AHBLT-2016 to show that
`
`MatchLogic’s technology allegedly raised the bar in terms of providing
`
`more complete activity reporting. (Paper 24, pp. 38-40.) The document’s
`
`authors are not under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this
`
`proceeding. Because Ex.B of AHBLT-2016 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, Ex.B of AHBLT-2016
`
`purports to quote Michael Lavery to show MatchLogic allegedly raised
`
`the bar in terms of providing more complete activity reporting. (AHBLT-
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`2016 at Ex. B.) Ex.B of AHBLT-2016 further purports to quote Evan
`
`Neufeld to show TrueCount allegedly was widely adopted. (AHBLT-
`
`2016 at Ex. B.) Thus, Ex.B of AHBLT-2016 contains hearsay within
`
`hearsay and no part of the combined statements conforms with an
`
`exception to the rule against hearsay. Google also objects to Ex. B of
`
`AHBLT-2016 under FRE 403 at least because Ex. B of AHBLT-2016 is
`
`duplicative of AHBLT-2003. The probative value of this exhibit is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence. Google further objects to Ex. B of AHBLT-2016 under FRE
`
`401 and 402. Exhibit B is irrelevant because it provides no relationship
`
`between the referenced TrueCount and the ’045 patent claims.
`
`5. Google objects to Ex.C of AHBLT-2016 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE
`
`801, 802). The document’s authors are not under oath and are not subject
`
`to cross-examination in this proceeding. Because Ex.C of AHBLT-2016
`
`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,
`
`Ex.C of AHBLT-2016 purports to quote analysts to show caching
`
`allegedly becoming an integral part of the Internet. (AHBLT-2016 at Ex.
`
`C.) Thus, Ex.C of AHBLT-2016 contains hearsay within hearsay and no
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule
`
`against hearsay. Google also objects to Ex. C of AHBLT-2016 under
`
`FRE 403 at least because Ex. C of AHBLT-2016 is duplicative of
`
`AHBLT-2001. The probative value of this exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Google further objects to Ex. C of AHBLT-2016 under FRE 401 and
`
`402. Exhibit C is irrelevant because it provides no relationship between
`
`the referenced TrueCount and the ’045 patent claims.
`
`6. Google objects to AHBLT-2018 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2018 to show that HTTP could not directly
`
`query a SQL database. (Paper 24, pp.24, 33.) The document’s authors are
`
`not under oath and are not subject to cross-examination in this
`
`proceeding. Because AHBLT-2018 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. Google also objects to AHBLT-2018
`
`under FRE 401 and 402. The exhibit is not relevant to the instituted
`
`ground. For example, the exhibit has no bearing on whether the
`
`challenged claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Google further
`
`objects to AHBLT-2018 under FRE 403. The probative value of the
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`leading to confusion and waste of time.
`
`7. Google objects to AHBLT-2019 as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 801, 802).
`
`Patent Owner uses AHBLT-2019 to show that the header of an HTTP
`
`request or response is not part of the URL and POST requests generally
`
`did not include a question mark in the URL. (Paper 24, pp.22, 26-27.)
`
`The document’s authors are not under oath and are not subject to cross-
`
`examination in this proceeding. Because AHBLT-2019 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. Google also objects to
`
`AHBLT-2019 under FRE 401 and 402. The exhibit is not relevant to the
`
`instituted ground. For example, the exhibit has no bearing on whether the
`
`challenged claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Google further
`
`objects to AHBLT-2019 under FRE 403. The probative value of the
`
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`leading to confusion and waste of time.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case 1PR2015-00657
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`Respectfully s, ibmitted,
`STERNE, KM$LER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`N..
`J’
`
`’L(
`/ / (cid:9)
`Midhe11e K. Holoubek (cid:9)
`Registration No. 54,179
`
`Michael V. Messinger
`Registration No. 37,575
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`Date: November 4, 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)(1)" was served in their
`
`entireties on November 4, 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
`
`Date: November 4, 2015
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`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
