`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED DURING THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING
`
`Filed via PRPS
`
`Dear Board:
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the admissibility of
`
`the document identified below that was submitted by Patent Owner with “Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response to Petition” on October 29, 2015, Paper No. 6
`
`(“POPR”), for the following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2002 because its has not been
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 901. Ex.
`
`2002 includes header/footer information referencing the “Minnesota
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Nutrition Conference,” “September 11, 2001,” and “Presented by Kelly S.
`
`Davis.” However, Patent Owner provides no evidence supporting a finding
`
`that Ex. 2002 was actually presented where, when, and by whom stated. In
`
`addition, Ex. 2002 is not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`2. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2002 because it is hearsay and
`
`contains hearsay under FRE 801, and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807.
`
`For example, with citation to Ex. 2002, Patent Owner states, for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted, that “[t]hose of ordinary skill recognized these [i.e., wet
`
`milling and dry milling] to be ‘distinct’ processes that generate ‘unique co-
`
`products.’” POPR, p. 18 (fn 2). In addition, the referenced portion of Ex.
`
`2002 also states, for the truth of the matter asserted, that “[t]here are two
`
`distinct processes for processing corn, wet-milling and dry-milling and each
`
`process generates unique co-products.” Ex. 2002, p. 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`These objections have been filed and served within 10 business of the
`
`institution of trial on January 27, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Richard T. Roche/
`Richard T. Roche
`Reg. No. 38,599
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`/Joel A. Austin/
`Joel A. Austin
`Reg. No. 59,712
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed via PRPS
`
`Dear Board:
`
`I hereby certify on this 10th day of February 2016, that a true and correct
`
`copy of the OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) TO EVIDENCE
`
`SUBMITTED DURING THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING was electronically
`
`mailed in its entirety to:
`
`IPR2015-01592@bakerlaw.com
`
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Joel A. Austin/
`Joel A. Austin
`Reg. No. 59,712
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QB\470037.00067\38468878.2
`
`
`
`2