Filed on behalf of Nidec Motor Corporation
`By:
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01039
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01039
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Lindsay Corporation (“Lindsay”)
`
`submits its notice of objections to Valmont’s Response to Petition and Exhibits
`
`2006-2012, 2014-2015 submitted by Patent Owner Valmont Industries, Inc.
`
`(“Valmont”) in connection with IPR2015-01039, within five business days
`
`following Valmont’s filing of its Response to Petition (Paper No. 15). The bases
`
`for the objections are as follows:
`
`
`
`Valmont’s Response to Petition and Mercer Declaration
`
`Lindsay objects to all statements in Valmont’s Response to Petition and the
`
`Mercer Declaration (Ex. 2006) referring to information or testimony from any of
`
`the Exhibits objected to below, for the reasons set forth below with respect to that
`
`exhibit.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2006, which Valmont describes as “Professor
`
`Melvin Ray Mercer’s Declaration,” because it is not helpful, lacks foundation,
`
`constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert opinion that fails to meet the
`
`fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and contains numerous analytical
`
`gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharms, 509 U.S. 579
`
`(1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). The testimony in Exhibit
`
`2006 is littered with inadmissible conclusory, unsupported, ipse dixit statements
`
`for which Mr. Mercer fails to identify documentary evidence that experts in the
`
`field would reasonably rely upon in rendering an opinion. (see, e.g., ¶¶ 10, 12, 29,
`
`31-35, 37, 39, 47, 52, 56, 57-68, 70-71, 73-74, 77-78). Moreover, Mr. Mercer’s
`
`testimony on United States patent law (see e.g., ¶¶ 23-28) is inadmissible. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Lindsay also objects because Mr. Mercer’s testimony contains
`
`inadmissible hearsay statements (see ¶¶ 23-25, 27-28, 39, 57). FED. R. EVID. 801,
`
`802.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Lindsay stands on the objections of its counsel lodged in Exhibit 2007,
`
`which Valmont describes as “Deposition Transcript of Dr. Rosenberg.”
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2008, which Valmont describes as “OneStat
`
`Website Statistics and website metrics Press Room (July 24, 2002),” as it is
`
`irrelevant and prejudicial, FED. R. EVID. 401-403, has not been authenticated, FED.
`
`R. EVID. 901, 902, and contains inadmissible hearsay statements, including dates,
`
`statements of purported fact, and data reported thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Moreover, the data reported in Exhibit 2008 is inadmissible under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(b) because the requisite information regarding the collection, analysis, and
`
`reporting of the data is not provided.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2009, which Valmont describes as “Kyocera QCP
`
`6035 Specs (Feb. 29, 2008),” as it is irrelevant and prejudicial, FED. R. EVID. 401-
`
`403, has not been authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901, 902, and contains inadmissible
`
`hearsay statements, including dates, statements of purported fact, and data reported
`
`thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2010, which Valmont describes as “Laptop Vs.
`
`PDA, eHow article, by David Sandoval,” as it is irrelevant and prejudicial, FED. R.
`
`EVID. 401-403, has not been authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901, 902, and contains
`
`inadmissible hearsay statements, including dates, statements of purported fact, and
`
`data reported thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802. Lindsay further objects to Exhibit
`
`2010 because is not helpful, fails to explain the qualifications for individual who is
`
`opining therein, constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert opinion that fails to
`
`meet the fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and contains numerous
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`analytical gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharms, 509 U.S.
`
`579 (1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Lindsay further objects to Exhibit 2014 because
`
`it is unsworn testimony. 37 CFR § 42.2, 42.63.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2011, which Valmont describes as “HP iPAQ
`
`2210/2215 Pocket PC 2003 PDA, Mobile Tech Review by Lisa Gade (June 19,
`
`2003),” as it is irrelevant and prejudicial, FED. R. EVID. 401-403, has not been
`
`authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901, 902, and contains inadmissible hearsay
`
`statements, including dates, statements of purported fact, and data reported
`
`thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802. Lindsay further objects to Exhibit 2011 because is
`
`not helpful, fails to explain the qualifications for individual who is opining therein,
`
`constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert opinion that fails to meet the
`
`fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and contains numerous analytical
`
`gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharms, 509 U.S. 579
`
`(1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Moreover, the tests and data reported in Exhibit
`
`2011 is inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b) because the requisite information
`
`regarding the collection, analysis, and reporting of the testing and data is not
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`provided. Lindsay further objects to Exhibit 2014 because it is unsworn testimony.
`
`37 CFR § 42.2, 42.63.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2012, which Valmont describes as “Apple iBook
`
`G3/600 14-inch (Early 2002) review,” as it is irrelevant and prejudicial, FED. R.
`
`EVID. 401-403, has not been authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901, 902, and contains
`
`inadmissible hearsay statements, including dates, statements of purported fact, and
`
`data reported thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802. Lindsay further objects to Exhibit
`
`2012 because is not helpful, fails to explain the qualifications for individual who is
`
`opining therein, constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert opinion that fails to
`
`meet the fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and contains numerous
`
`analytical gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharms, 509 U.S.
`
`579 (1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Lindsay further objects to Exhibit 2014 because
`
`it is unsworn testimony. 37 CFR § 42.2, 42.63.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 2014, which Valmont describes as “Brown,
`
`PCMag re Sprint PCS TP3000 (February 6, 2001),” as it is irrelevant and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`prejudicial, FED. R. EVID. 401-403, has not been authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901,
`
`902, and contains inadmissible hearsay statements, including dates, statements of
`
`purported fact, and data reported thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802. Lindsay further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2014 because is not helpful, fails to explain the qualifications for
`
`individual who is opining therein, constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert
`
`opinion that fails to meet the fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and
`
`contains numerous analytical gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow
`
`Pharms, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997);
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Lindsay further objects to
`
`Exhibit 2014 because it is unsworn testimony. 37 CFR § 42.2, 42.63.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Lindsay objects to Exhibit 20145, which Valmont describes as “Evolution of
`
`Cell Phones, Web Designer Depot (May 22, 2009),” as it is irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial, FED. R. EVID. 401-403, has not been authenticated, FED. R. EVID. 901,
`
`902, and contains inadmissible hearsay statements, including dates, statements of
`
`purported fact, and data reported thereon. FED. R. EVID. 801, 802. Lindsay further
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 because is not helpful, fails to explain the qualifications for
`
`individual who is opining therein, constitutes unsupported, conclusory expert
`
`opinion that fails to meet the fundamental requirements of expert testimony, and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`contains numerous analytical gaps. FED. R. EVID. 702, 703; Daubert v. Merrel Dow
`
`Pharms, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997);
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Lindsay objects to Exhibit
`
`2015 because it is unsworn testimony. 37 CFR § 42.2, 42.63. Finally, Lindsay
`
`objects to Exhibit 2015 as an improper summary under FED. R. EVID. 1006 because
`
`the originals or duplicates of the writings purportedly summarized in Exhibit 2015
`
`have not been produced or otherwise made available to Lindsay.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Scott R. Brown
`Scott R. Brown, Reg. No. 40,535
`Matthew B. Walters, Reg. No. 65,343
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`Tel: (913) 647-9050
`Fax: (913) 647-9057
`sbrown@hoveywilliams.com
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`LINDSAY CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 26th day of January, 2016, a
`
`true and accurate copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to Patent
`
`Owner’s Evidence was filed through the Patent Review Processing System and
`
`served on the following counsel for Petitioner via email:
`
`
`
`
`
`musselman@fr.com
`rbonilla@fr.com
`IPR25199-0016IP1@fr.com
`
`P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Scott R. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`8
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
