Patent No. 8,648,717
`
`
` Paper No.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC. AND RPX
`CORP.
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,648,717
`Issue Date: February 11, 2015
`Title: PROGRAMMABLE COMMUNICATOR
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01823
`
`PETITIONERS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC. AND RPX
`CORP.
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,648,717
`Issue Date: February 11, 2015
`Title: PROGRAMMABLE COMMUNICATOR
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01823
`
`PETITIONERS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 (b), Petitioners Sierra Wireless America, Inc.,
`
`Sierra Wireless, Inc. and RPX Corp. (“Petitioners”) object under the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence (“FRE”) to Exhibits 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016,
`
`2018, and 2019 cited in Patent Owner, M2M Solutions LLC (“M2M”), Response
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (“Response”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`instituted trial on March 8, 2016. M2M’s response was served on May 25, 2016;
`
`therefore, Petitioners’ Objections to Evidence are timely under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 2008, 2009, 2010, 2016, 2018 and 2019
`Exhibit 2008: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2008, Memorandum Opinion
`
`Denying Sierra’s Summary Judgment Motion, as being hearsay or containing
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807; is irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401 and 402, and is unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE
`
`403.
`
`Exhibit 2009: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2009, ‘010 Markman Opinion
`
`dated November 12, 2013, as being hearsay or containing hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807; is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and
`
`is unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`Exhibit 2010: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2010, Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement, as being hearsay or containing hearsay under FRE 801 and is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 802-807; is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and is
`
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2016: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2016, Excerpts of the deposition
`
`of Dr. Negus, as being hearsay or containing hearsay under FRE 801 and is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 802-807; is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and is
`
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2018: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2018, Excerpts of the Negus
`
`Invalidity Expert Report, as being hearsay or containing hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and is inadmissible under FRE 802-807; is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and
`
`is unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Exhibit 2019: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2019, U.S. Patent No. 8,094,010,
`
`as being irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`III. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 2012, 2013, 2015
`Exhibit 2012: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2012, ISO/IEC 7816-3 because it
`
`is irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Exhibit 2013: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2013, 3G TS 22.038, SIM
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`Application Toolkit (SAT); Service Description; V.2.0.0 because it is irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Exhibit 2015: Petitioners object to Exhibit 2015, 3rd Generation Partnership
`
`Project; Point-to-Point (PP) Short Message Services (SMS) Support On Mobile
`
`Radio Interface; 3G TS 24.011 V3.2.0 (2000-03 Release 1999) because it is
`
`irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`IV. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2011
`Petitioners object to Exhibit 2011, Declaration of Joel R. Williams, is
`
`objected to as lacking foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing
`
`testimony on matters as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge, containing
`
`hearsay and as being conclusory. Exhibit 2011 is objected to under FRE 702 for
`
`failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant
`
`subject-matter. Exhibit 2011 is further objected to under FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as
`
`failing to be based upon sufficient facts or data, as the product of unreliable
`
`principles and methods and for failing to reliably apply sound principles and
`
`methods to the facts of the case. Exhibit 2011 is further objected to as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and 402, and as being unfairly prejudicial, confusing and
`
`misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraph 13 in Exhibit 2011, Declaration of Joel R.
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`Williams, under FRE 602 and 703, to the extent Mr. Williams offers opinions
`
`regarding documents not of record in these proceedings.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraph 15 in Exhibit 2011, under FRE 602 and 703,
`
`and as lacking foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on
`
`matters as to which the witness lacks personal knowledge, containing hearsay and
`
`as being conclusory to the extent Mr. Williams offers opinions regarding claim
`
`construction proceedings in the district court litigation.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraphs 30-31 in Exhibit 2011, under FRE 602 and
`
`703, to the extent Mr. Williams offers opinions regarding the disclosure of the ‘717
`
`Patent without citation and beyond the scope of disclosure of the ‘717 Patent.
`
`Petitioners further object to paragraphs 30-31 Exhibit 2011 as irrelevant under FRE
`
`401 and 402, and as being unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraph 74 in Exhibit 2011, under FRE 703, to the
`
`extent those paragraphs rely on Exhibit 2016 and Exhibit 2019, which Petitioners
`
`have objected to as inadmissible evidence.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraphs 38-47 of Exhibit 2011 as lacking
`
`foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on matters as to
`
`which the witness lacks personal knowledge, containing hearsay and as being
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`conclusory. Paragraphs 38-47 of Exhibit 2011 are also objected to under FRE 702
`
`for failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant
`
`subject-matter. Paragraphs 38-47 of Exhibit 2011 are further objected to under
`
`FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as failing to be based upon sufficient facts or data, as the
`
`product of unreliable principles and methods and for failing to reliably apply sound
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case. Paragraphs 38-47 of Exhibit 2011
`
`are Exhibit 2011 is further objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402, and as
`
`being unfairly prejudicial, confusing and misleading under FRE 403.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraphs 48-57 of Exhibit 2011 as under FRE 702 for
`
`failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the relevant
`
`subject-matter. Paragraphs 48-57 of Exhibit 2011 are further objected to under
`
`FRE 702(b), (c) and (d) as failing to be based upon sufficient facts or data, as the
`
`product of unreliable principles and methods and for failing to reliably apply sound
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case. Paragraphs 48-57 of Exhibit 2011
`
`are Exhibit 2011 is further objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Petitioners object to paragraphs 66-95 of Exhibit 2011 are objected to under
`
`FRE 702 for failing to demonstrate that the declarant is qualified as an expert in the
`
`relevant subject-matter. Paragraphs 66-95 of Exhibit 2011 are further objected to
`
`under FRE 702 as the product of unreliable principles and methods and for failing
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. Paragraphs
`
`66-95 of Exhibit 2011 are further objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Petitioners also object to paragraphs 77-78 of Exhibit 2011 as lacking foundation,
`
`assuming facts not in evidence, containing testimony on matters as to which the
`
`witness lacks personal knowledge, containing hearsay and as being conclusory.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: June 1, 2016
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/Jennifer Hayes/
`Reg. No. 50,845
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`P.O. Box 60610
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel. (650) 320-7763
`Fax (650) 320-7701
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,648,717
`Reply ISO Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioners
`
`Evidentiary Objections was served in its entirety on June 1, 2016 by e-mail on the
`
`following individuals:
`
`Jeffrey Costakos
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`Michelle Moran
`mmoran@foley.com
`
`Marc Henschke
`mhenschke@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Jennifer Hayes/
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`7
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
