`Filed: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`Robert Bosch LLC and Daimler AG,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Orbital Engine Company Pty Limited,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01259
`U.S. Patent No. 5,655,365
`_______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO ORBITAL ENGINE
`COMPANY PTY LIMITED’S EXHIBITS 2007-2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01259
`Patent 5,655,365
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners Robert Bosch LLC and
`
`Daimler AG submit to Orbital Engine Company Pty Limited the following
`
`objections to Exhibits 2007-2013.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2007 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Exhibit 2007 does not have any bearing on the instituted grounds in
`
`this case.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. There is no correlation between the construction of the claims of the
`
`’365 patent as issued and the hypothetical fuel injection diagram depicted in
`
`Exhibit 2008. Nor does Exhibit 2008 have any bearing on the instituted grounds in
`
`this case
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2009 because Orbital lists Exhibit
`
`2009 on its exhibit list but has not relied on this exhibit in its Response to the
`
`2
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01259
`Patent 5,655,365
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2010 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. There is no correlation between the construction of the claims of the
`
`’365 patent as issued and the hypothetical fuel injection diagram depicted in
`
`Exhibit 2010. Nor does Exhibit 2010 have any bearing on the instituted grounds in
`
`this case
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2011 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2011 because Orbital lists Exhibit
`
`2011 on its exhibit list but has not relied on this exhibit in its Response to the
`
`Petition.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2012 because Orbital lists Exhibit
`
`2012 on its exhibit list but has not relied on this exhibit in its Response to the
`
`Petition.
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 401-403 as irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial. Petitioners also object to Exhibit 2013 because Orbital lists Exhibit
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01259
`Patent 5,655,365
`2013 on its exhibit list but has not relied on this exhibit in its Response to the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Aaron L. Parker/
`
`Aaron L. Parker, Backup Counsel
`
`Reg. No. 50,785
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01259
`Patent 5,655,365
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO ORBITAL ENGINE COMPANY PTY
`
`LIMITED’S EXHIBITS 2007-2013 was served on April 1, 2016, via email
`
`directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the following:
`
`
`David Magee
`mageed@pepperlaw.com
`
`Andrew Schultz
`schultza@pepperlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lisa C. Hines/
`Lisa C. Hines
`Litigation Clerk
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`Dated: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5