`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01985
`
`Patent 8,713,476 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
`