`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHNSON MATTHEY INC., and JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC,
`Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01266
`Patent Number: 9,039,982
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER JOHNSON MATTHEY INC. & JOHNSON
`MATTHEY PLC’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`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 relied upon by Petitioner in its
`
`June 6, 2016 Reply (Paper 23):
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 106/401/402/403:
`
` 46:14-22, 46:24-47:1, 124:10-15: This testimony is
`
`incomplete when taken in isolation and is used in a
`
`misleading manner.
`
` 39:6-24, 143:22-144:7: This testimony does not appear
`
`relevant to an issue in the IPR, is incomplete when taken
`
`in isolation, and is used in a misleading manner. This
`
`testimony does not appear to support the contention for
`
`which it is cited.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1030
`
`FRE 401-402: 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,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1031
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1032
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 1033
`
`
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1034
`
`Lack of Foundation: Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1035
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Exhibit 1036
`
`FRE 401-402: 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123: The exhibit constitutes improper and
`
`untimely supplemental evidence.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /
`
` Brian E. Ferguson / c
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. 36,801)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. 73,760)
`Backup Counsel
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 682-7000
`
`
`
`5
`
`Date: June 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 13, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PETITIONER JOHNSON MATTHEY INC. & JOHNSON
`
`MATTHEY PLC’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW was served via electronic mail,
`
`upon the following:
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Gwilym J. Attwell
`Martina Tyreus Hufnal
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR38411-0005IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`/ Timothy J. Andersen / c
`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
`
`
`
`6