throbber
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
`
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket