`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND
`MICRON MEMORY JAPAN, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`The undersigned, on behalf of Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
`
`(“MIT” or “Patent Owner”), hereby provides Notice to the Board that the
`
`objections made on the record herewith were served to Micron Technology, Inc.,
`
`and Micron Memory Japan, Inc. ("Micron" or “Petitioner”) pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64. See also Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`by: /Steven J. Pollinger/
`Steven J. Pollinger
`Registration No. 35,326
`Ramzi R. Khazen
`Registration No. 55,810
`
`Counsel for Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND
`MICRON MEMORY JAPAN, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Massachusetts Institute
`
`Of Technology (“MIT” or “Patent Owner”) objects to the admissibility of the
`
`supplemental evidence identified below that was served by Micron Technology,
`
`Inc. and Micron Memory Japan, Inc. (“Micron” or “Petitioner”), for the following
`
`reasons:
`
`A. Exhibits 1048-1051, 1053
`Exhibits 1048-1051, 1053 are objected to as lacking relevance, causing
`
`undue prejudice, and for lacking authentication. For example, Petitioner does not
`
`offer evidence that these exhibits are what Petitioner claims them to be, and the
`
`documents are not self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. For further
`
`example, these exhibits are irrelevant and cause undue prejudice because Petitioner
`
`relies on these exhibits improperly to attempt to fill in absent claim elements of the
`
`challenged claims in the asserted art where the asserted art itself is silent, including
`
`in purported anticipation analyses. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. Petitioner does not
`
`assert these documents themselves as prior art references that anticipate or
`
`combine to render obvious the challenged patent claims, and as such are not listed
`
`as specific grounds for challenging the patent claims. Because these documents
`
`are used improperly by Petitioner, the prejudice they would cause outweighs any
`
`purported probative value. See Id. Exhibits 1052 and 1054 are declarations from
`
`counsel for Petitioner that certain of these documents were printed from certain
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`websites at certain times, but these declarations are deficient. For example, they
`
`still offer no further evidence that the respective documents printed off of these
`
`websites are what they claim to be or were available and unaltered from the date
`
`that Petitioner claims to the date they were stated to have been printed by counsel
`
`for Petitioner.
`
`Exhibits 1045-1051, 1053
`B.
`Exhibits 1045-1051 and 1053 are objected to for containing hearsay. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802. For example, Petitioner relies on these exhibits to prove
`
`the truth of material properties, product introduction dates, and/or alleged industry
`
`practices in the prior art.
`
`C. Exhibit 1045
`Exhibit 1045 is objected to as lacking completeness. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`
`
`MIT renews its prior objections as they apply to the allegedly corresponding
`
`supplements. The objections have been made within five business days from the
`
`December 7, 2015 service of Petitioner’s supplemental evidence.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`by: /Steven J. Pollinger/
`Steven J. Pollinger
`Registration No. 35,326
`Ramzi R. Khazen
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`Registration No. 55,810
`
`Counsel for Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01087
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PATENT OWNER'S
`
`NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 has been served via electronic mail on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioners:
`
`Michael S. Turner
`mturner@kenyon.com
`Rose Cordero Prey
`rcordero@kenyon.com
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 908-6210
`Fax.: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`by: /Steven J. Pollinger/
`Steven J. Pollinger
`Registration No. 35,326
`Ramzi R. Khazen
`Registration No. 55,810
`
`Counsel for Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology