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 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
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
