`
`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 WITH THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Filed via PRPS
`
`Dear Board:
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the admissibility of
`
`the documents identified below that were submitted by Patent Owner with the
`
`“Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120” on April 22, 2016, Paper
`
`No. 15 (“POR”), for the following reasons:
`
`1. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2003 because it fails to disclose the
`
`underlying facts and data on which the opinion is based, and therefore is
`
`entitled to no weight under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65. For instance, Ex. 2003 fails
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`to provide any relevant information concerning the facts and data relied
`
`upon in Exs. 2010 and 2015, and for example, Dr. Kohl relied upon Table 1
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059 in contravention of 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2003 as lacking foundation,
`
`assuming facts not in evidence, and containing testimony on matters as to
`
`which the declarant lacks sufficient knowledge (personal or otherwise). In
`
`addition, Petitioner objects to Ex. 2003 because it is irrelevant under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 401 and 402, and as being confusing and
`
`misleading under FRE 403, at least to the extent that Ex. 2003 incorporates
`
`or relies upon objectionable exhibits. For example, with citation to Ex.
`
`2002, Dr. Kohl states, for the truth of the matter asserted, that “[t]hose of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize these to be ‘distinct’ processes that
`
`generate ‘unique co-products’ (see Ex. 2002 at 2-7).” Ex. 2003, ¶ 65.
`
`2. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2004 because it fails to disclose the
`
`underlying facts and data on which the opinion is based, and therefore is
`
`entitled to no weight under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65. For instance, Ex. 2004 fails
`
`to provide any relevant information concerning the facts and data relied
`
`upon in Exs. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020,
`
`and 2021, and for example, that “Solenis began developing the DimensionTM
`
`products in 2009.” Ex. 2004, ¶ 6. Petitioner further objects to Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Owner’s Ex. 2004 as lacking foundation, assuming facts not in evidence,
`
`and containing testimony on matters as to which the declarant lacks
`
`sufficient knowledge (personal or otherwise). In addition, Petitioner objects
`
`to Ex. 2004 because it is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and as being
`
`confusing and misleading under FRE 403, at least to the extent that Ex. 2004
`
`incorporates or relies upon objectionable exhibits.
`
`3. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Exs. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
`
`because each is hearsay and contains hearsay under FRE 801, and each is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 802-807. For example, Exs. 2008, 2009, 2010, and
`
`2011 state, for the truth of the matter asserted, that Solenis’ extraction aids
`
`have achieved certain results in connection with oil extraction. In addition,
`
`Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Exs. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
`
`because each is irrelevant under FRE 401 and FRE 402, and each is
`
`confusing and misleading under FRE 403, such as, for example in
`
`connection with Ex. 2004 and the POR at Section VI.
`
`4. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2014 because it has not been
`
`authenticated as required by FRE 901. Ex. 2014 includes a listing of
`
`“Existing” “Sugar/Starch Plans” under the heading “U.S. Ethanol Plants,”
`
`which Patent Owner’s declarant, Jennifer Bailey, states is available at a
`
`website address. Ex. 2004, ¶ 14. However, evidence sufficient to support a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`finding that Ex. 2014 is what it purports to be is not provided. Ex. 2014 is
`
`not self-authenticating under FRE 902. Furthermore, Petitioner objects to
`
`Patent Owner’s Ex. 2014 because it is hearsay and contains hearsay under
`
`FRE 801, and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807. For example, with
`
`citation to Ex. 2014, Jennifer Bailey states, for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted, that “[c]urrently, there are approximately 216 corn-to-ethanol
`
`plants in the United States (Ex. 2014, U.S. Ethanol Plants).”
`
`5. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Exs. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and
`
`2020 because each is hearsay and contains hearsay under FRE 801, and each
`
`is inadmissible under FRE 802-807. For example, Exs. 2015, 2016, 2017,
`
`2018, 2019, and 2020 state, for the truth of the matter asserted, that Solenis’
`
`extraction aids have achieved certain results in connection with oil
`
`extraction.
`
`6. Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Ex. 2021 because it is hearsay and
`
`contains hearsay under FRE 801, and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807.
`
`For example, Ex. 2021 states, for the truth of the matter asserted, that
`
`Solenis’ extraction aids have achieved certain results in connection with oil
`
`extraction.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`These objections have been filed and served within five (5) business days of
`
`service of the objectionable evidence on April 22, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`/Christopher J. Fahy/
`Christopher J. Fahy
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 29th day of April 2016, that a true and correct copy
`
`of the OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) TO EVIDENCE
`
`SUBMITTED WITH THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE was electronically
`
`mailed in its entirety to:
`
`IPR2015-01592@bakerlaw.com
`
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Joel A. Austin/
`Joel A. Austin
`Reg. No. 59,712
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QB\470037.00067\39666886.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2