`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-006621
`Patent 6,014,698
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2015-00666 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. hereby makes the following objections to the
`
`Case IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`
`
`admissibility of documents submitted with Patent Owner’s Response (POR).
`
`(Paper 22.)
`
`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 sole named inventor of the ’698 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 IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`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 IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`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
`
`’698 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 22, pp. 39-41.) 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 IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`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 ’698 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 IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`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 ’698 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 22, pp.25, 34.) 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 IPR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`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 22, pp.23, 27-28.)
`
`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 1PR2015-00662
`U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`R, GOL (cid:9)
`
`& FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`STER7ichtdl/le K. Holoubek
`
`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.constantweil.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
`PL
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179)
`Michael V. Messinger (Reg. No. 37,575)
`Attorneys for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`