`Filed: April 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ELBRUS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01524
`Patent No. 6,366,130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner submits the following
`
`objections to exhibits submitted by Patent Owner, Elbrus International Limited.
`
`Petitioner’s objections apply equally to Patent Owner’s reliance on these exhibits in
`
`any subsequently-filed documents. These objections are timely, having been filed
`
`and served within five business days from when the Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`Exhibits were served on Petitioner.
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2002 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that Patent Owner has not established that it is relevant to
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it was allegedly
`
`published in 2001.
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2002 under Rule 802 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2004 to the extent it relies on Exhibits 2002 and
`
`2005-2009 on at least the same grounds as those listed for Exhibits 2002 and
`
`2005-2009. For instance, Petitioner objects to paragraphs 34, 58, 59, and 91 of
`
`Exhibit 2004 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the ground
`
`that these paragraphs lack relevance as to what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have understood at the time of the alleged invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01524
`
`(“’130 patent”), especially given that these paragraphs contain declaration testimony
`
`relying on references that are not contemporaneous with the ’130 patent.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to paragraphs 34, 58, 59, and 91 of Exhibit 2004 under
`
`Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as containing declaration testimony
`
`relying on out-of-court statements for the truth of the matters asserted.
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2005 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that Patent Owner has not established that it is relevant to
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it was allegedly
`
`published in 2013.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2005 under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2006 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that Patent Owner has not established that it is relevant to
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it was allegedly
`
`published in 1984.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2006 under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01524
`
`
`
`
`Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that Patent Owner has not established that it is relevant to
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it was allegedly
`
`published in 2005.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2007 under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that it lacks relevance because Patent Owner never relied
`
`on this exhibit in its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has also failed to establish that it is relevant to what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it was allegedly published in 1991.
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2008 under Rule 802 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01524
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2009 under Rules 401-403 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence on the ground that it lacks relevance. Patent Owner has not established
`
`that it is relevant to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,366,130, especially given that it
`
`was allegedly published in 2016. Furthermore, Patent Owner never relied on this
`
`exhibit in its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2009 under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence on the ground of hearsay.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2009 under Rules 901 and 902 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence as not having been properly authenticated.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Steven L. Park/
`Steven L. Park (Reg. No. 47,842)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Patent Owner’s Exhibits by electronic means on the date below at the
`
`following address of record:
`
`Clifford H. Kraft (clifflaw@att.net)
`
`Raymond P. Niro (rniro@nshn.com)
`Arthur A. Gasey (gasey@nshn.com)
`Joseph N. Hosteny (hosteny@hosteny.com)
`Olivia T. Luk (oluk@nshn.com)
`Christopher W. Niro (cniro@nshn.com)
`Ashley E. LaValley (alavalley@nshn.com)
`NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
`181 W. Madison, Suite 4600
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Steven L. Park/
`Steven L. Park (Reg. No. 47,842)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2016