`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019791
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00919 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby moves to exclude evidence the following evidence submitted in this
`
`proceeding by Petitioners Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Symantec Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”): Exhibits 1004, 1008, 1012, 1024, 1036, 1039-1042,
`
`1044-1045 and Petition Annotated Figures 1-4. The Board should grant Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude for the reasons set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections Were Timely Made.
`
`Patent Owner timely raised the objections set forth herein. On April 4,
`
`2016, Patent Owner timely served Petitioner with objections to the exhibits to its
`
`Petition. Paper 10. On June 22, 2016, Patent Owner timely served Petitioner with
`
`objections to evidence pursuant to the Board’s order during a conference call held
`
`on June 14, 2016. Paper 20. On November 1, 2016, Patent Owner timely served
`
`Petitioner with objections to the exhibits to its Reply. Paper 36. Patent Owner
`
`does not assert any new objections in this Motion to Exclude.
`
`III. The Board Should Exclude Petitioner’s Belated Exhibits as Outside the
`Proper Scope of Reply (Exs. 1036, 1039-1042, 1044-1045).
`
`The Board should exclude Exhibits 1036, 1039-1042 and 1044-1045 and
`
`Petitioner’s related arguments. Petitioner improperly introduced this new evidence
`
`and related arguments for the first time in its Reply. These exhibits and arguments
`
`are inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, and are properly subject to exclusion
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`because Petitioner is not permitted to introduce new evidence and arguments in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Reply in order to resolve the deficient arguments and evidentiary shortcomings of
`
`its Petition. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“a party may move to exclude evidence, whether as improper under the response-
`
`only regulation, under the Trial Practice Guide’s advice, or on other grounds.”).
`
`Specifically, Petitioner introduced for the first time in its Reply new
`
`exhibits, including a new rebuttal declaration from Dr. Rubin, references to which
`
`it does not rely upon in its Reply, declarations from a Finjan expert in unrelated
`
`district court proceedings, and additional support to attempt to establish the public
`
`accessibility of the Sirer document. There is no reason why Petitioner could not
`
`have included such evidence in its Petition. To the contrary, Exhibits 1036, 1039,
`
`1040, 1041, 1042, 1044 and 1045 contain information that was available at the
`
`time Petitioner filed its Petition.
`
`Petitioner may not use its Reply as a vehicle to add in new evidence that
`
`could have been included in its Petition, and all such evidence should be excluded.
`
`See, e.g., Toshiba Corp. v. Optical Devices, LLC, IPR2014-01447, Paper 34, pp.
`
`44–47 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016) (“[Section 42.23(b)], however, does not authorize
`
`or otherwise provide a means for supplementing the evidence of record.”); Toyota
`
`Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2013-00424, Paper 50, p. 21
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) (“[Petitioner] cannot rely belatedly on this evidence in its
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Reply and Reply Declaration of [its expert] to make up for the deficiencies in its
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Petition.”); The Scotts Co. LLC v. Encap, LLC, IPR 2013-00110, Paper 79, pp. 5–6
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 24, 2014) (declining to consider untimely evidence and arguments
`
`because the patent owner “was denied the opportunity to file responsive
`
`evidence.”).
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to sandbag Patent Owner with these untimely
`
`submissions is highly prejudicial, as Patent Owner has not had the opportunity to
`
`respond to this untimely evidence and Petitioner’s related arguments.
`
`First, Petitioner improperly offers Exhibit 1036 (the “DeSart Declaration”),
`
`and Exhibit A thereto, in its Reply as a belated attempt to supplement its evidence
`
`that the Sirer Document was publicly available prior art and to bolster its grounds
`
`of patent invalidity. The Board should not consider this evidence because it was
`
`available to Petitioner at the time it filed the Petition and, as explained more fully
`
`below, is simply a failed attempt to rectify Petitioner’s withdrawn Sirer
`
`Declaration. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012)(“[A] reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be
`
`considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from
`
`improper portions of the reply.”). “[I]ndications that a new issue has been raised in
`
`a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for …
`
`unpatentability … and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`filing.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Second, Petitioner also should have submitted Exhibit 1044 (“Nebenzahl”)
`
`and Dr. Rubin’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1045) with its Petition. Instead,
`
`Petitioner submitted these exhibits for the first time with its Reply, in an attempt to
`
`supplement its prima facie invalidity case for the ’154 Patent by attempting to
`
`remedy the deficiencies of the Khazan reference. See Ex. 1045 at ¶ 11 (noting
`
`alleged “techniques for instrumenting Win32 EXE files, like those disclosed in
`
`Khazan, were widely known” to the “extent one might argue that Khazan’s
`
`disclosure does not provide enough detail”). During his deposition, Dr. Rubin
`
`confirmed that he was aware of Nebenzahl at the time he submitted his first
`
`declaration (and for over a decade prior to that), “followed closely” the associated
`
`research and could have cited Nebenzahl at the time Petitioner filed the Petition.
`
`Ex. 2035 (Rubin Tr.) pg. 10, line 10- pg. 11, line 20.
`
`To the extent Dr. Rubin’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1045) is not
`
`excluded in its entirety, at a minimum, Paragraph 12 should be excluded as
`
`improper new evidence belatedly introduced in a Reply. Paragraph 12 discusses
`
`the belated Nebenzahl reference (Ex. 1044).2
`
`
`2 Petitioner does not cite to or rely on Exhibit 1044 in its Reply. However, Dr.
`
`Rubin cites to Exhibit 1044 in his belated Supplemental Declaration.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`Third, in its Reply, Petitioner improperly attempts to introduce three new
`
`exhibits to supplement its claim construction position. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`relies on Exhibits 1039–1041 – declarations by Dr. Nenad Medvidovic in unrelated
`
`district court actions – to support its assertion that “in the context of the ‘154
`
`patent, content means code.” Reply at 7. Petitioner could have relied on each of
`
`these declarations in its Petition, thus they should be excluded as untimely.3
`
`IV. The Board Should Disregard and Exclude the Sirer Declaration
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`The Board should disregard the Sirer Declaration (Ex. 1008) because
`
`Petitioner has not made Dr. Sirer available for deposition, and exclude it as hearsay
`
`and for lack of foundation. See HTC Corp. and HTC Am., Inc. v. NFC Tech., LLC,
`
`Case IPR2014-01198, Paper 41, at 2–5 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2015) (expunging a
`
`declaration where the witness was not made available and declining to give any
`
`3 Exhibits 1039-1041 should also be excluded as irrelevant and as misleading. Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s opinions in other proceedings is not relevant to the construction of
`
`the terms at issue here. Moreover, Petitioner solely relies on small portions of
`
`Exhibits 1039-1041, rendering its citation to these exhibits highly prejudicial as
`
`Petitioner does not adequately and properly convey the positions and arguments
`
`Dr. Medvidovic presented in the totality of these exhibits. See Reply at 8 (relying
`
`solely on limited portions of Exs. 1039-1041).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`weight to the reliance on the expunged exhibit). Specifically during a conference
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`call with the Board on June 14, 2016, the Board granted Petitioner’s request to
`
`replace, in the record, the Sirer Declaration with the DeSart Declaration, holding
`
`that the DeSart Declaration should be treated as supplemental information. Paper
`
`No. 43 (6/14/16 Tr.) at 24. Petitioner elected to replace the Sirer Declaration after
`
`it decided it would not pay Dr. Sirer the fees he was looking for to testify at
`
`deposition and over concerns that paying the requested fee would render Dr.
`
`Sirer’s testimony unreliable. Id. at 15 (“he wanted a $35,000 non-refundable fee
`
`plus $650 an hour . . . to appear to speak to the contents of the declaration . . .
`
`plainly there’d be a huge bias problem that would make the testimony worthless
`
`anyway.” Patent Owner has not had any opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Sirer on
`
`his testimony offered in his declaration. Accordingly, the Board should exclude
`
`the Sirer Declaration. See HTC Corp. and HTC Am., Inc., Case IPR2014-01198,
`
`Paper 41 at 4 (the offering party “is responsible for the availability of its chosen
`
`declarants….”).
`
`Having withdrawn Dr. Sirer as a witness and in view of Patent Owner not
`
`having an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Sirer, Petitioner’s continued reliance
`
`on the Sirer Declaration, particularly in its Reply, is improper, irrelevant and
`
`highly prejudicial to Patent Owner, particularly under Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`401, 402 and 403, and the Board should either disregard or exclude the Sirer
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Declaration. Patent Owner is entitled to cross-examine through deposition any
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`direct testimony offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (cross-examination
`
`deposition procedure); 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing as “routine
`
`discovery” “[c]ross examination of affidavit testimony”). Because Petitioner has
`
`failed to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42 by providing Petitioner
`
`with the requisite deposition, the Sirer Declaration is inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61 (“Evidence that is not taken, sought, or filed in accordance with this subpart
`
`is not admissible.”).
`
`The Sirer Declaration also should be excluded as hearsay, as Petitioner
`
`offered it to “prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement,” i.e., when the
`
`document became available. FRE 801(c)(2). Because Patent Owner had no
`
`opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Sirer on his testimony, it should be excluded as
`
`an out-of-court statement rather than trial testimony. FRE 801(c).
`
`The Sirer Declaration should be excluded for the additional reasons that his
`
`opinions are conclusory and unreliable and for lack of foundation. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702, 602. Petitioner relies on the Sirer Declaration as evidence of when Sirer
`
`became publicly available. However, Dr. Sirer does not disclose underlying facts
`
`in support of his opinions, rendering them unreliable. Specifically, Dr. Sirer
`
`simply states that the article “was published within the United States in or before
`
`December 1999.” Ex. 1008 at ¶ 3. Dr. Sirer does not explain how he knows this,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`what evidence he is relying on, or any of the who/what/when/where and how the
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`document purportedly became available to the public.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 provides that “[a] witness may testify to a matter only if
`
`evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter.” Dr. Sirer offers nothing to support his testimony as to
`
`the requirement that the article was publicly accessible. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
`
`Int’l Trade Com’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to be publicly available
`
`prior art, there must be a “satisfactory showing that such document has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can
`
`locate it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting SRI Int’l v. Internet Sec.
`
`Sys. Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Mr. Sirer’s blanket statement that
`
`an article was “published within the United States” falls short of establishing any
`
`public accessibility particularly with no explanation, support or analysis as to the
`
`meaning of “published” and no basis for the conclusory statement.
`
`V. The Board Should Exclude the DeSart Declaration (Ex. 1036).
`In addition to the fact that it was untimely and improperly disclosed in
`
`Petitioner Reply (Section III supra), the DeSart Declaration (Ex. 1036) should be
`
`excluded for lack of foundation and because his opinions are conclusory and
`
`unreliable. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Mr. DeSart, while purportedly experienced with the
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`University of Washington Engineering Library’s “normal business practices,” does
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`not claim to have any actual knowledge as to whether a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been able to locate the Sirer Document, which is the
`
`requirement for establishing that a document was publicly accessible. Ex.1036 at ¶
`
`1; see also Kyocera Wireless Corp., 545 F.3d at 1350 (to be publicly available
`
`prior art, there must be a “satisfactory showing that such document has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons . . . ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
`
`In particular, Mr. DeSart revealed during his deposition that the Sirer
`
`Document is not a properly indexed “printed publication.” Specifically, Mr.
`
`DeSart explained that for an interested person in the art, during the relevant time
`
`period, to have been able to find the Sirer Document at the University of
`
`Washington Library, that person would have needed to know that the Sirer
`
`Document was located within the “Operating Systems Review” journal within the
`
`library. Ex. 2006 (“DeSart Tr.”) at 9:17-12:1.
`
`Thus, it would have been impossible to locate the Sirer Document without
`
`this exact knowledge particularly because, at the time, the University of
`
`Washington organized references in alphabetical order by journal name and not by
`
`subject matter, let alone article name. In fact, Mr. DeSart admitted that a search
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`for the Sirer Document by its title would not have generated any results. DeSart
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Tr. at 11:24-12:1. Thus, the DeSart Declaration does not establish that the Sirer
`
`Document was publicly accessible because it could not have been located without
`
`having specific knowledge as to its existence and in particular, a specific journal
`
`name. See Application of Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1978) (holding
`
`that a reference in a library was not publicly available because a person would
`
`have needed to be informed of its existence to find it, rather than use “customary
`
`research aids available in the library” to find it).
`
`Accordingly, Mr. DeSart’s testimony fails to authenticate the Sirer
`
`Document (Ex. 1004), and is unreliable and conclusory as to the date Petitioner
`
`purports the Sirer Document was publicly available. For these reasons, Ex. 1036 is
`
`not relevant and thus inadmissible under FRE 401, FRE 402 and FRE 901.
`
`VI. The Board Should Exclude the Sirer Document (Ex. 1004) and Related
`Exhibit 1024.
`
`The Board should exclude Exhibit 1004 (the “Sirer Document”) and related
`
`Exhibit 1024, U.S. Patent No. 6,324,685 (the “‘685 Patent”), because Petitioner
`
`has not authenticated the Sirer Document, it is hearsay and it is irrelevant.
`
`First, Petitioner failed to authenticate the Sirer Document as a document
`
`that was publicly available in December 1999. Specifically, Petitioner offers no
`
`evidence of the publication date beyond the Sirer and DeSart Declarations and
`
`Exhibit 1024 (the ‘“685 Patent”). As discussed above, the Sirer and Desart
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Declarations are inadmissible and fail to provide foundation for their claims
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`regarding when, if at all, the Sirer Document became publicly available.
`
`The ‘685 Patent (Ex. 1024) is also inadmissible as an attempt to establish the
`
`Sirer Document as publicly available prior art. Specifically, there is no evidence in
`
`the record that the reference cited in the ‘685 Patent, which Petitioner purports to
`
`be “Sirer,” is the same document Petitioner relies on in these proceedings. In re
`
`Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“the IDS [does not] provides
`
`substantial evidence that the [reference] was publicly accessible as of the critical
`
`date”).
`
`Because none of these exhibits authenticate or establish the public
`
`availability of the Sirer Document, Petitioner has failed “[t]o satisfy the
`
`requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence” because it fails to
`
`proffer any “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`More specifically, the Sirer Document bears a date of December 1999 which
`
`is insufficient to authenticate it as a document that was publicly available as of
`
`1999. The mere appearance of a date on a document is insufficient to establish the
`
`date of when the document was available to the public. See, e.g., TRW Automotive
`
`U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-01347, Paper 25, pp. 5–12 (P.T.A.B. Jan.
`
`6, 2016) (granting patent owner’s motion to exclude prior art for lack of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`authentication); Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (E.D.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Mich. 2003) (“If anything, the dates imprinted upon these documents establish
`
`simply the date of copyright, or the date that the document was created or
`
`printed.… A date imprinted on a document, without more, does not prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence [when it] was known or used by others in this
`
`country….”).
`
`Petitioner identifies the date on the face of the document as the “copyright
`
`date” but a copyright date, as a matter of law, fails to establish that a document
`
`qualifies as a printed publication, let alone its public accessibility. Reply at 3; see
`
`also, e.g., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, IPR2014-01347, Paper 25, pp. 5–12
`
`(“[a]lthough [a] copyright notice is probative that IEEE owns a copyright to the
`
`article, it is not probative that the article was ever published by IEEE or anyone
`
`else.”); Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc., Case IPR2015-00677, pp.
`
`18–19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2015) (Paper 15) (a copyright notice does not establish
`
`when a document was publicly accessible under patent law); In re Lister, 583 F.3d
`
`at 1316-17 (finding that a manuscript that had a copyright date and was available
`
`in the Copyright Office was not publicly accessible); CNET Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Etilize, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1273-74 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that a
`
`copyright date does not prove that a reference was publicly accessible); iOnROAD
`
`Ltd. v. Mobileye Techs. Ltd., IPR2013-00227, Paper 18, pp. 3 n.4, 15-16 (P.T.A.B.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Aug. 27, 2013) (stating that a copyright date does not mean that a reference was
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`published). Accordingly, the Board should exclude the Sirer Document because it
`
`was not properly authenticated.
`
`Second, the copyright date on the Sirer Document is itself inadmissible
`
`hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Petitioner attempts to rely on the copyright
`
`date for a hearsay purpose, i.e., to prove the truth of the contention that the Sirer
`
`Document was publicly accessible as a printed publication as of September 1995.
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d at 974 and n.4 (“Plaintiff
`
`correctly notes that the dates imprinted on these documents are hearsay when
`
`offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, that SAM 1.3 was
`
`accessible to the public as of the date set forth on the documents”) (citing Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 801(c)) (citations omitted). In addition, no hearsay exception applies.
`
`Therefore, the copyright date is hearsay under FRE 801, and is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 802 and FRE 803.
`
`Third, the Sirer Document and ‘685 Patent should be excluded as irrelevant,
`
`because Petitioner fails that the Sirer Document was available as prior art.
`
`Evidence is relevant if (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probably
`
`than it would be without the evidence, and (2) the fact is of consequence in
`
`determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. A Petitioner can challenge the validity
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`of a patent based only on prior art patents and printed publications. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`311(b). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that a document is a “printed
`
`publication” by demonstrating that the document was publicly accessible to
`
`interest persons. ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., IPR2015-00716, Paper
`
`13, at 8, 15–17 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015) (denying institution because Petitioner
`
`did not meet its burden of establishing that a reference is prior art); In re Wyer, 655
`
`F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
`
`As discussed above, the Sirer Document is unauthenticated, is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, and is not prior art. Accordingly, the Sirer Document cannot be relevant
`
`in determining whether the ’154 Patent is valid. Thus, allowing Petitioner to rely
`
`on the Sirer Document as prior art would be unfairly prejudicial to Patent Owner
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, given that it is unauthenticated, its
`
`publication date is hearsay, and the document is irrelevant. For all of the reasons
`
`discussed above, the Board should exclude the Sirer Document.
`
`The ‘685 Patent is not offered for any purpose other than propping up the
`
`Sirer Document. With the exclusion of the Sirer Document, the ‘685 Patent
`
`should, therefore, be excluded as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`VII. The Board Should Exclude the Detours Article (Exhibit 1012) and
`Annotated Figures 1-4
`
`The Board should exclude Exhibit 1012 (the “Detours Article”) and
`
`Annotated Figures 1-4 in its Petition. First, the Board instituted IPR of the ‘154
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Patent based on Khazan, Sirer and Ben-Natan. Paper 8. The Detours Article is not
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`part of the instituted grounds. As such, it is irrelevant and should be excluded
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401-402.
`
`Second, Petitioner has failed to authenticate the Detours Article. In
`
`particular, Petitioner offers no evidence establishing when, if ever, the Detours
`
`Article became publicly accessible as a printed publication. Thus, the Detours
`
`Article should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 901.
`
`Third, the Annotated Figures should be excluded as irrelevant and highly
`
`prejudicial. The Annotated Figures are modified versions of the figures in Khazan
`
`and Sirer, including Petitioner’s contentions and characterizations of the figures.
`
`The Annotated Figures are not evidence of the disclosure of Khazan and Sirer, but
`
`rather a juxtaposition and comingling of Petitioner’s attorney argument and the
`
`actual references at issue. Compare Paper No. 2 at 24, Fig. 1 with Ex. 1003 at Fig.
`
`7; compare Paper No. 2 at 29, Fig. 2 with Ex. 1003 at Fig. 9; compare Paper No. 2
`
`at 40, Fig. 4 with Ex. 1003 at Fig. 9. Therefore, the Annotated Figures should be
`
`excluded as inadmissible as they are not relevant, confusing, outweighed by
`
`prejudice, and a waste of time. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should grant Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Exclude.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 17, 2016
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 650.752.1800
`
`
`
`Jeffrey Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.7502 Fax: 212.715.8302
`
`Michael Kim (Reg. No. 40,450)
`mkim@finjan.com
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: 650.397.9567
`
` (Case No. IPR2015-01979) Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on
`
`November 17, 2016, by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System as well as delivering via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner and Joinder Petitioner:
`
`17
`
`Orion Armon
`Brian Eutermoser
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, Colorado 80021
`oarmon@cooley.com
`beutermoser@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`
`Max Colice
`COOLEY LLP
`500 Boylston Street, 14th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3736
`mcolice@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Jennifer Volk-Fortier
`COOLEY LLP
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 2019
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`
` /James Hannah/
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`nathanhamstra@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`18