UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated March 17, 2016 (Paper 8), Patent
`
`Owner timely moves to exclude Petitioner’s evidence as follows:
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`1.
`
`Identity of the exhibit and portion to be excluded: Ex. 1010 to be
`
`excluded in entirety. Ex. 1010 purports to be an excerpt from a 12/99
`
`issue of Popular Science. See Petitioner’s Reply at iii.
`
`2. Objection: Fed. R. Evid. 402/403 (relevance), 801 (hearsay), 901
`
`(authentication).
`
`3. Patent Owner filed and served the foregoing objections to Ex. 1010 on
`
`October 7, 2016. Petitioner has not served supplemental evidence to
`
`remedy these objections.
`
`4. Ex. 1010 is cited to by Dr. Rhyne as evidence that the “Ericsson R380
`
`was known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the [sic] July
`
`2000.” Ex. 1015, ¶¶14, 17. However, Petitioner included no declaration
`
`or evidence establishing the authenticity of Ex. 1010. Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony confirms that he received Ex. 1010 from the attorneys
`
`representing LG, and therefore he cannot authenticate Ex. 1010. See Ex.
`
`2011 at 11:11-12:7.
`
`5. Dr. Rhyne also relies upon Ex. 1010 for the truth of the statements
`
`presented therein, including alleged features and availability of the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Ericsson R380. See Ex. 1015, ¶14. Ex. 1010 is hearsay that does not
`
`satisfy any exception.
`
`6. Finally, Ex. 1010 lacks disclosure that is relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. Specifically, Ex. 1010 fails to establish that the purported
`
`Ericsson device (R380) was publicly available or known to a POSITA
`
`prior to the critical date, and therefore is irrelevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`1.
`
`Identity of the exhibit and portion to be excluded: Ex. 1011 to be
`
`excluded in entirety. Ex. 1011 purports to be a User’s Guide for Ericsson
`
`R380s. See Petitioner’s Reply at iii.
`
`2. Objection: Fed. R. Evid. 402/403 (relevance), 801 (hearsay), 901
`
`(authentication).
`
`3. Patent Owner filed and served the foregoing objections to Ex. 1011 on
`
`October 7, 2016. Petitioner has not served supplemental evidence to
`
`remedy these objections.
`
`4. Ex. 1011 is cited to by Dr. Rhyne as evidence that the “Ericsson R380
`
`was known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the [sic] July
`
`2000.” Ex. 1015, ¶¶13, 17. However, Petitioner included no declaration
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`or evidence establishing the authenticity of Ex. 1011. Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony confirms that he received Ex. 1011 from the attorneys
`
`representing LG, and therefore he cannot authenticate Ex. 1011. See Ex.
`
`2011 at 12:8-14:8.
`
`5. Petitioner relies upon Ex. 1011 for the truth of the statements presented
`
`therein, including the alleged date of publication and features of the
`
`Ericsson R380. See Ex. 1015, ¶13. Ex. 1011 is hearsay that does not
`
`satisfy any exception.
`
`6. Finally, Ex. 1011 lacks disclosure that is relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. Specifically, Ex. 1011 fails to establish that the purported
`
`Ericsson device (R380) was publicly available or known to a POSITA
`
`prior to the critical date, and therefore is irrelevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`1.
`
`Identity of the exhibit and portion to be excluded: Ex. 1012 to be
`
`excluded in entirety. Ex. 1012 purports to be a Press release dated
`
`3/18/99 from Open Mobile Alliance. See Petitioner’s Reply at iii.
`
`2. Objection: Fed. R. Evid. 402/403 (relevance), 801 (hearsay), 901
`
`(authentication).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`3. Patent Owner filed and served the foregoing objections to Ex. 1012 on
`
`October 7, 2016. Petitioner has not served supplemental evidence to
`
`remedy these objections.
`
`4. Ex. 1012 is cited to by Dr. Rhyne as evidence that the “Ericsson R380
`
`was known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the [sic] July
`
`2000.” Ex. 1015, ¶¶15, 17. However, Petitioner included no declaration
`
`or evidence establishing the authenticity of Ex. 1012. Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony confirms that he received Ex. 1012 from the attorneys
`
`representing LG, and therefore he cannot authenticate Ex. 1012. See Ex.
`
`2011 at 14:11-15:10.
`
`5. Petitioner relies upon Ex. 1012 for the truth of the statements presented
`
`therein, including alleged features and availability of the Ericsson R380.
`
`See Ex. 1015, ¶15. Ex. 1012 is hearsay that does not satisfy any
`
`exception.
`
`6. Finally, Ex. 1012 lacks disclosure that is relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. Specifically, Ex. 1012 fails to establish that the purported
`
`Ericsson device (R380) was publicly available or known to a POSITA
`
`prior to the critical date, and therefore is irrelevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`1.
`
`Identity of the exhibit and portion to be excluded: Ex. 1013 to be
`
`excluded in entirety. Ex. 1013 purports to be an Article dated 3/18/99
`
`from EE Times. See Petitioner’s Reply at iii.
`
`2. Objection: Fed. R. Evid. 402/403 (relevance), 801 (hearsay), 901
`
`(authentication).
`
`3. Patent Owner filed and served the foregoing objections to Ex. 1013 on
`
`October 7, 2016. Petitioner has not served supplemental evidence to
`
`remedy these objections.
`
`4. Ex. 1013 is cited to by Dr. Rhyne as evidence that the “Ericsson R380
`
`was known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the [sic] July
`
`2000.” Ex. 1015, ¶¶16, 17. However, Petitioner included no declaration
`
`or evidence establishing the authenticity of Ex. 1013. Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`testimony confirms that he received Ex. 1013 from the attorneys
`
`representing LG, and therefore he cannot authenticate Ex. 1013. See Ex.
`
`2011 at 15:11-16:7.
`
`5. Petitioner relies upon Ex. 1013 for the truth of the statements presented
`
`therein, including alleged features and availability of the Ericsson R380.
`
`See Ex. 1015, ¶16. Ex. 1013 is hearsay that does not satisfy any
`
`exception.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`6. Finally, Ex. 1013 lacks disclosure that is relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding. Specifically, Ex. 1013 fails to establish that the purported
`
`Ericsson device (R380) was publicly available or known to a POSITA
`
`prior to the critical date, and therefore is irrelevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`1.
`
`Identity of the exhibit and portion to be excluded: Ex. 1015, ¶¶13-18.
`
`Ex. 1015 is Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration, and the paragraphs to be
`
`excluded are those paragraphs that rely upon Exs. 1010-1013.
`
`2. Objection: Fed. R. Evid. 402/403 (relevance), 801 (hearsay), 901
`
`(authentication).
`
`3. Patent Owner filed and served the foregoing objections to Ex. 1015 on
`
`October 7, 2016. Petitioner has not served supplemental evidence to
`
`remedy these objections.
`
`4. Dr. Rhyne relies upon the hearsay contained in exhibits lacking
`
`authentication as the sole foundation for his opinion that the “Ericsson
`
`R380 was known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to the [sic] July
`
`2000.” Ex. 1015, ¶17. As explained above, Petitioner included no
`
`declaration or evidence establishing the authenticity of Exs. 1010-1013.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Further, the contents of these exhibits are hearsay not subject to any
`
`exception. These exhibits should be excluded, and the paragraphs of Dr.
`
`Rhyne’s rebuttal declaration that cite to and rely on these exhibits should
`
`also be excluded.
`
`Dated: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Walter D. Davis (Reg. No. 45,137)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY,
`LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`Email: wdavis@dbjg.com
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on November 10, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PETITIONER’S
`
`EVIDENCE are being served via email to the Petitioner at the correspondence
`
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@gtlaw.com
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`harrisr@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`brownn@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Richard D. Harris
`Eric J. Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`Nicholas A. Brown
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
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
