`
`__________________
`
`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 IPR2015-019961
`U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2016-00964, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`
`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. 54 and 56. Patent
`
`Owner also incorporates its Objections to Evidence to Petitioner’s Petition for IPR,
`
`filed on April 14, 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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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 249–302 and Attachment A are related to the
`
`Motion to Amend, and are not relevant to the Reply. Therefore, at least paragraphs
`
`249–302 and Attachment A are not relevant under FRE 401 and FRE 402.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`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
`IPR2015-01996 (U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634)
`
`
`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 estab