UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN PETITIONER’S
`REPLY AND PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN PETITIONER’S
`REPLY AND PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”) objects under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to the admissibility of the
`
`following documents submitted by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts, Inc.,
`
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and
`
`Bungie, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in its Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (“Reply”) and
`
`its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend. Paper Nos. 57 and 59. Patent
`
`Owner also incorporates its Objections to Evidence to Petitioner’s Petition for IPR,
`
`filed on April 7, 2016, below. Paper No. 10.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply was filed on October 15, 2016. Patent Owner’s
`
`objections are timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Patent Owner serves
`
`Petitioner with these objections to provide notice that Patent Owner will move to
`
`exclude these exhibits as improper evidence.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY EVIDENCE
`A.
`
`Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`Networks, in IEEE Int’l Conf. on Commc’ns Conf. Rec. 1381 – 86
`(Montreal 1997) (Exhibit 1105) (“Shoubridge”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Shoubridge for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Shoubridge under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Shoubridge is what
`
`Petitioner claims it to be. To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on the date
`
`that appears on Shoubridge to establish public accessibility as a printed
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`publication, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible under FRE 802,
`
`and further, the date has not been authenticated and is inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`
`2.
`
`Additionally, Acceleration Bay objects to Shoubridge as improper
`
`prior art as it is not an enabling disclosure.
`
`
`3.
`
`Because of these deficiencies, Petitioner has failed to establish that
`
`Shoubridge is a prior art printed publication. Therefore, Shoubridge is not relevant
`
`under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`B. Declaration of David R. Karger (Exhibit 1119)
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1119 for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Under FRE 702, Dr. David Karger’s opinions are inadmissible
`
`because they are conclusory, do not disclose underlying facts or data in support of
`
`his opinions, and are unreliable. Additionally, Dr. David Karger is unqualified as
`
`an expert to provide technical opinions of a person of skill in the art. See Ex. 1119,
`
`Appendix A. As such, his opinions are inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`
`2.
`
`Under FRE 401 and FRE 402 (relevance), FRE 403 (probative value
`
`outweighed by prejudice, confusing of issues, wasting time) his opinions are also
`
`irrelevant, confusing, and of minimal probative value. Dr. David Karger
`
`improperly relies on Shoubridge and the Shoubridge Thesis for his analysis, and
`
`for the reasons discussed above, Exhibit 1119 is inadmissible.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`C. Declaration of Peter J. Shoubridge (Exhibit 1120)
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1120 for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1120 is improper under the Federal Rules of Evidence. For
`
`example, under FRE 702, Dr. Peter Shoubridge’s opinions are inadmissible
`
`because they are conclusory, do not disclose underlying facts or data in support of
`
`his opinions, and are unreliable. Additionally, Dr. Peter Shoubridge is unqualified
`
`as an expert, and is unqualified to provide opinions as to whether Shoubridge are
`
`prior art or have been published. As such, his opinions are inadmissible under
`
`FRE 702 and FRE 602.
`
` Moreover, Petitioner has failed to authenticate Shoubridge through
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1120 under FRE 901. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that the
`
`Shoubridge document referenced in Exhibit 1120 is what Petitioner claims it is,
`
`and has failed to authenticate the date by which Shoubridge was allegedly publicly
`
`accessible as a printed publication through Exhibit 1120. In addition, Acceleration
`
`Bay objects to Exhibit 1120 to the extent it was not executed in the United States.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1120 because it does not meet the requirements set
`
`forth under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`
`3.
`
`Acceleration Bay also objects because Exhibit 1120 is hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and inadmissible under FRE 802. Accordingly, Exhibit 1120 is not
`
`relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`D. Rebuttal Declaration of David R. Karger (Exhibit 1125)
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Rebuttal Declaration of
`
`David R. Karger (Exhibit 1125) for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1125 because portions of Exhibit
`
`1125 lack relevance under FRE 401 and 402 since they exceed the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1125 under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s
`
`inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1125 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1125 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1125 because Dr. Karger’s opinions
`
`are conclusory, do not disclose underlying facts or data in support of his opinions,
`
`and are unreliable. Further, Dr. Karger is unqualified as an expert to provide
`
`technical opinions of person of skill in the art. See Ex. 1119, Appendix A
`
`(Curriculum Vitae of David R. Karger). Therefore, Dr. Karger’s opinions are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1125 because it does not
`
`introduce evidence of Dr. Karger’s personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`testimony contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under FRE
`
`602.
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner also objects because Exhibit 1125 is hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate any of the exhibits cited in the
`
`Exhibit 1125 under FRE 901 and FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to
`
`establish that the exhibits referenced in the Exhibit 1125 are what Petitioner claims
`
`they are, and has failed to authenticate any dates by which the cited exhibits were
`
`allegedly publicly accessible as a printed publication through Exhibit 1125.
`
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any dates that appear
`
`in the Exhibit 1125 to establish public accessibility of the cited exhibits as printed
`
`publications, the dates are hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 and FRE 803. Further, the dates have not been authenticated and are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901 and FRE 602.
`
`
`8.
`
`To the extent the Dr. Karger relies on the inadmissible evidence
`
`discussed herein as part of his analysis, those portions of Exhibit 1125 are also
`
`inadmissible under at least FRE 401, FRE 402, and/or FRE 403.
`
`
`9.
`
`At least paragraphs 215–264 and Attachment A are related to the
`
`Motion to Amend, and are not relevant to the Reply. Therefore, at least paragraphs
`
`222 –275 and Attachment A are not relevant under FRE 401 and FRE 402.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Further, any attempt by Petitioner to rely on at least these paragraphs or attachment
`
`for the Reply would be highly prejudicial to Patent Owner under FRE 403.
`
` For at least the foregoing reasons, Dr. Karger’s opinions are not
`10.
`
`relevant under FRE 401 and are inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Dr.
`
`Karger’s opinions are confusing, of minimal probative value, outweighed by
`
`prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`E. Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1126)
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Declaration of Scott
`
`Bennett, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1126) (“Bennett Reply Declaration”) for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Bennett Reply Declaration because
`
`portions of the Bennett Reply Declaration lack relevance under FRE 401 and 402
`
`because they exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to the Bennett Reply Declaration under
`
`FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to respond
`
`to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Bennett Reply Declaration as untimely
`
`because it should have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to the Bennett Reply Declaration
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`because it is supplemental information that is improper and untimely under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Bennett’s opinions are conclusory, do not disclose underlying
`
`facts or data in support of his opinions, and are unreliable. Further, Dr. Bennett is
`
`unqualified as an expert. See Ex. 1026, Ex. A (curriculum vitae of Dr. Bennett).
`
`Therefore, Dr. Bennett’s opinions are inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Bennett Reply Declaration because it does
`
`not introduce evidence of Dr. Bennett’s personal knowledge of the subject matter
`
`of the testimony contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under
`
`FRE 602.
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner also objects because the Bennett Reply Declaration is
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE
`
`802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`6.
`
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any dates that appear
`
`in the Bennett Reply Declaration to establish public accessibility of the exhibits
`
`cited therein as printed publications, the dates are hearsay under FRE 801 and are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 802 and FRE 803. Further, the dates have not been
`
`authenticated and are inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that Dr. Bennett relied on the inadmissible evidence
`
`discussed herein as part of his analysis, those portions of the Bennett Reply
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Declaration are also inadmissible under at least FRE 401, FRE 402, and/or FRE
`
`403.
`
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner objects to paragraphs 1–19, 28–37 of the Bennett Reply
`
`Declaration because Petitioner does not cite to or rely on these paragraphs in its
`
`Reply. Accordingly, such evidence is not relevant under FRE 401 and is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402. Any attempt by Petitioner to rely on these
`
`paragraphs would be highly prejudicial to Patent Owner under FRE 403.
`
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Bennett’s opinions are not relevant under FRE 401and are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Dr. Bennett’s opinions are confusing, of
`
`minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and are
`
`therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`F. Michael T. Goodrich, Leap-Frog Packet Linking and Diverse Key
`Distributions for Improved Integrity in Network Broadcasts
`(Exhibit 1128)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1128 for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1128 because it lacks relevance under
`
`FRE 401 and 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1128 under FRE
`
`403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to
`
`the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1128 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1128 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1128 because it is not relevant under
`
`FRE 401 and is inadmissible under FRE 402. For example, Petitioner
`
`mischaracterizes the contents of Exhibit 1128. Accordingly, Petitioner’s reliance
`
`on Exhibit 1128 is highly prejudicial to Patent Owner under FRE 403, who does
`
`not have an opportunity to respond to such evidence.
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1128 under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1128 is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1128 is hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`6.
`
`Additionally, the Board did not institute IPR based on Exhibit 1128,
`
`and therefore it is not relevant under FRE 401, is inadmissible under FRE 402,
`
`and highly prejudicial to Patent Owner under FRE 403.
`
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, Exhibit 1128 is not
`
`relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Exhibit
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`1128 is confusing, of minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a
`
`waste of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`G. Excerpts from THE IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF
`ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS, Sixth Edition
`(IEEE 1996) (Exhibit 1129)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1129 for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1129 as not relevant under FRE 401
`
`and FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1129 under FRE 403
`
`because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to the
`
`untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1129 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1129 as untimely and improper
`
`because it is supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1129 under FRE 106 because the
`
`complete version of Exhibit 1129, in fairness, ought to be considered.
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1129 under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1129 is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1129 is hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 1129 is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402. Moreover, Exhibit 1129 is confusing, of minimal probative value,
`
`outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`H. Laurent Gautier and Christophe Diot, Design and Evaluation of
`MiMaze, a Multi-Player Game on the Internet, in IEEE Int’l Conf.
`on Multimedia Computing & Sys. 233–235 (Exhibit 1130)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Laurent Gautier and Christophe Diot, Design and
`
`Evaluation of MiMaze, a Multi-Player Game on the Internet, in IEEE Int’l Conf.
`
`on Multimedia Computing & Sys. 233–235 (Exhibit 1130) for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Gautier under FRE 901 and FRE
`
`602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1130 is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1130 because it is not enabling prior
`
`art.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1130 because it is hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any dates that appear
`
`in Exhibit 1130 to establish public accessibility of the cited exhibits as printed
`
`publications, the dates are hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 and FRE 803. Further, the dates have not been authenticated and are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1130 under FRE 106 because the
`
`complete version of Exhibit 1130, in fairness, ought to be considered.
`
`
`6.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1130 because it is not relevant under
`
`FRE 401 and FRE 402. Further, Exhibit 1130 is confusing, of minimal probative
`
`value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible
`
`under FRE 403.
`
`Second Declaration of Shoubridge (Exhibit 1136)
`
`I.
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Second Declaration of
`
`Shoubridge (Exhibit 1136) for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1136 because the Exhibit 1136 lacks
`
`relevance under FRE 401 and 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1136 under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s
`
`inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1136 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to the Second Shoubridge Declaration because it is
`
`supplemental information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1136 because it does not introduce
`
`evidence of Dr. Shoubridge’s personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under FRE
`
`602.
`
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner also objects because the Exhibit 1136 is hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE
`
`803.
`
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any dates that appear
`
`in the Exhibit 1136 to establish public accessibility of the exhibits cited therein as
`
`printed publications, the dates are hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible
`
`under FRE 802 and FRE 803. Further, the dates have not been authenticated and
`
`are inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`
`6.
`
`To the extent that Dr. Shoubridge relied on the inadmissible evidence
`
`discussed herein as part of his analysis, those portions of the Exhibit 1136 are also
`
`inadmissible under at least FRE 401, FRE 402, and/or FRE 403.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`7.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1136 because it does not meet the
`
`requirements set forth under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`
`8.
`
`The opinions in the Exhibit 1136 are not relevant under FRE 401 and
`
`are inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Dr.Shoubridge’s opinions are
`
`confusing, of minimal probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of
`
`time and are therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`1.
`Exhibit A
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit A as not relevant under FRE 401 and
`
`
`1.
`
`FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit A under FRE 403 because of
`
`the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to the untimely
`
`evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit A as untimely because it should have
`
`been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit A because it is supplemental information that is
`
`improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit A under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit A is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit A is hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible under FRE
`
`802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit A is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402. Moreover, Exhibit A is confusing, of minimal probative value,
`
`outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`J.
`
`Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic
`Networks, in 3 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Commc’ns Conf. Rec. 1381 –
`86 (Montreal, 1997) from University Library of University of
`Massachusetts at Amherst (Exhibit 1137)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1137 for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1137 because Exhibit 1137 lacks
`
`relevance under FRE 401 and 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1137 under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s
`
`inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1137 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1137 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner also objects because Exhibit 1137 is hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any dates that appear
`
`in the Exhibit 1137 to establish public accessibility of the exhibits cited therein as
`
`printed publications, the dates are hearsay under FRE 801 and are inadmissible
`
`under FRE 802 and FRE 803. Further, the dates have not been authenticated and
`
`are inadmissible under FRE 901.
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1137 under FRE 106 because the
`
`complete version of Exhibit 1137, in fairness, ought to be considered.
`
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1137 under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1137 is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 1137 is not relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 402. Moreover, Exhibit 1137 is confusing, of minimal probative value,
`
`outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under
`
`FRE 403.
`
`IEEE Policy and Procedures Manual (Ex. 1138)
`
`K.
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 1138 for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1138 because Exhibit 1138 lacks
`
`relevance under FRE 401 and 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1138 under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s
`
`inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1138 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1138 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner also objects because Exhibit 1138 is hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Exhibit 1138 under FRE 901 and
`
`FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Exhibit 1138 is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`5.
`
`Further, Exhibit 1138 is a copy of the IEEE Policy and Procedures
`
`Manual as of October 7, 2016, which is not the relevant time frame at issue for the
`
`prior art. Petitioner has failed to show that the procedure contained within Exhibit
`
`1138 is the same procedure that was available during the relevant time frame. For
`
`all of the foregoing reasons, Exhibit 1138 is not relevant under FRE 401 and is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover, Exhibit 1138 is confusing, of minimal
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`probative value, outweighed by prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`L. Declaration of Gerard. P. Grenier – Shoubridge (Exhibit 1141)
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Declaration of Gerard P.
`
`Grenier (Exhibit 1141) and the supporting exhibit, Steven McCanne, Scalable
`
`Multimedia Communication: Using IP Multicast and Lightweight Sessions, in
`
`IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 33 – 45 (1999) (“Shoubridge Exhibit
`
`A”) for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1141 as not relevant under FRE 401
`
`and FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1141 under FRE 403
`
`because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to respond to the
`
`untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1141 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1141 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
` Mr. Grenier’s opinions are conclusory, do not disclose underlying
`3.
`
`facts or data in support of his opinions, and are unreliable. Further, Mr. Grenier is
`
`18
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`unqualified as an expert. Therefore, Mr. Grenier’s opinions are inadmissible under
`
`FRE 702.
`
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1141 because it does not introduce
`
`evidence of Mr. Grenier’s personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under FRE
`
`602.
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1141 because it is hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE
`
`803.
`
`
`6.
`
`Further, Mr. Grenier did not access Exhibit A in his declaration until
`
`April 8, 2016, which is past the relevant time frame of the prior art at issue.
`
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 1141 is not relevant under FRE 401 and
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`Shoubridge Exhibit A
`
`1.
`Patent Owner objects to Shoubridge Exhibit A as not relevant under
`
`
`1.
`
`FRE 401 and FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to Shoubridge Exhibit A
`
`under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to
`
`respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Shoubridge Exhibit A as untimely because it
`
`should have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Shoubridge Exhibit A because it is
`
`supplemental information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate Shoubridge Exhibit A under FRE
`
`901 and FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish that Shoubridge
`
`Exhibit A is what Petitioner claims it is.
`
`
`4.
`
`Shoubridge Exhibit A is hearsay under FRE 801 and is inadmissible
`
`under FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`
`5.
`
`Further, Shoubridge Exhibit A is a copy of Shoubridge Exhibit A as it
`
`existed on or about April 8, 2016, which is past the relevant time frame of the prior
`
`art at issue. See Grenier Reply Decl. at ¶ 10.
`
`
`6.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Shoubridge Exhibit A is not
`
`relevant under FRE 401 and is inadmissible under FRE 402. Moreover,
`
`Shoubridge Exhibit A is confusing, of minimal probative value, outweighed by
`
`prejudice, and/or a waste of time and therefore inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`M. Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier (Exhibit 1144)
`Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of the Declaration of Gerard P.
`
`Grenier (Exhibit 1144) and the supporting exhibit, Steven McCanne, Scalable
`
`Multimedia Communication: Using IP Multicast and Lightweight Sessions, in
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 33 – 45 (1999) (“McCanne Exhibit A”)
`
`for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1144 as not relevant under FRE 401
`
`and FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to the Grenier Reply Declaration
`
`for McCanne under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s
`
`inability to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1144 as untimely because it should
`
`have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1144 because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
` Mr. Grenier’s opinions are conclusory, do not disclose underlying
`3.
`
`facts or data in support of his opinions, and are unreliable. Further, Mr. Grenier is
`
`unqualified as an expert. Therefore, Mr. Grenier’s opinions are inadmissible under
`
`FRE 702.
`
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1144 because it does not introduce
`
`evidence of Mr. Grenier’s personal knowledge of the subject matter of the
`
`testimony contained therein, rendering such testimony inadmissible under FRE
`
`602.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1144 because it is hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and does not fall within a hearsay exception under FRE 802 and FRE
`
`803.
`
`
`6.
`
`Accordingly, the Exhibit 1144 is not relevant under FRE 401 and
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402 and FRE 403.
`
`1. McCanne Exhibit A
`Patent Owner objects to McCanne Exhibit A as not relevant under
`
`
`1.
`
`FRE 401 and FRE 402 because it exceeds the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner further objects to McCanne Exhibit A
`
`under FRE 403 because of the prejudice arising from Patent Owner’s inability to
`
`respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to McCanne Exhibit A as untimely because it
`
`should have been introduced in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b). Patent Owner objects to McCanne Exhibit A because it is supplemental
`
`information that is improper and untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to McCanne Exhibit A under FRE 106 because
`
`the complete version of McCanne Exhibit A, in fairness, ought to be considered.
`
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has failed to authenticate McCanne Exhibit A under FRE
`
`901 and FRE 602. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to establish
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
