UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`Patent Number: 7,601,662
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER UMICORE AG & CO. KG’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`Patent Number: 7,601,662
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER UMICORE AG & CO. KG’S
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner BASF Corporation, hereby
`
`objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence with Petitioner Umicore AG &
`
`CO. KG’s Petition for Inter Partes of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662.
`
`Evidence
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Objections
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit contains paragraphs, including paragraphs
`
`relating to claims 9-11, that are not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted. See, e.g., Institution decision,
`
`IPR2015- 01121, paper 8, at p. 16, 18.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 20-34, 35-36, 37-61, 62-268, and 269-314
`
`of the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has not
`
`been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 20-34, 35-36, 37-61, 62-268, and
`
`269-314 of the exhibit include opinions that are not admissible
`
`under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 20-34, 35-36, 37-61, 62-268, and
`
`269-314 of the exhibit includes statements that are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within hearsay.
`
`FRE 1006: the exhibit provides an improper summary of the
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 705 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: the exhibit includes expert
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data and
`
`improper discussion of patent law.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 1-30, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and
`
`Exhibit C of the exhibit include opinions that are not admissible
`
`under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 1-30, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and
`
`Exhibit C of the exhibit includes statements that are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within hearsay.
`
`FRE 1006: the exhibit provides an improper summary of the
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 705 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: the exhibit includes expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data and
`
`improper discussion of patent law.
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Date: November 12, 2015
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai /
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,601,662
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 12, 2015, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER UMICORE AG & CO. KG’S PETITION
`
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW was served via electronic mail, upon the
`
`following:
`
`Elizabeth Gardner
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1004
`T: 212-425-7200
`egardner@kenyon.com
`
`Richard L. DeLucia
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1004
`T: 212-425-7200
`rdelucia@kenyon.com
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ a
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`
`
`
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
