`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00041
`Patent 8,099,823
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) objects to the admissibility of the documents identified below that
`
`were submitted by Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Patent Owner”) in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,099,823 (“Patent Owner’s Response,” Paper No. 32) as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner objects
`
`to Patent Owner’s Response and each
`
`accompanying Exhibit submitted by Patent Owner to the extent they purport to
`
`introduce evidence that exceeds the scope of the Petition or does not relate to
`
`“prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Petitioner objects to Patent Owner’s Response to the extent it relies on or otherwise
`
`cites Exhibits 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and
`
`2016 for the reasons set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner objects to the Exhibits submitted by Patent Owner to the
`
`extent they attempt to circumvent the page limits established for Patent Owner’s
`
`Response. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.24(b), 42.6(a)(3); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014).
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2003 (Declaration of Dr. Steven Dubowsky1) is objected to
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 602,
`
`
`1 Titles of Patent Owner’s exhibits are taken from Patent Owner’s List of Exhibits,
`Patent Owner’s Response at iv-v.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`603 to the extent that it lacks foundation as to matters discussed therein; under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 702, 703 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and
`
`insufficient bases for such testimony; and under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804
`
`as hearsay. Exhibit 2003 is also objected to insofar as it cites or refers to other
`
`objectionable exhibits and testimony.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 2005 (April 15, 2010 Trial Transcript from Robert Bosch LLC
`
`v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. in the District of Delaware, Case No. 08-542 (SLR))
`
`is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation as to matters discussed therein; under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 702, 703 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and
`
`insufficient bases for such testimony; under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as
`
`hearsay; under Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902 for lack of authentication, and under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 1002 for lack of best evidence, including corroborating documentation.
`
`Patent Owner has produced no knowledgeable witness to testify in this proceeding
`
`or to be cross-examined as to these statements. Exhibit 2005 is also objected to
`
`insofar as it cites or refers to other objectionable exhibits and testimony.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 2006 (April 19, 2010 Trial Transcript from Robert Bosch LLC
`
`v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. in the District of Delaware, Case No. 08-542 (SLR))
`
`is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation as to matters discussed therein; under Fed.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`R. Evid. 702, 703 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and
`
`insufficient bases for such testimony; under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as
`
`hearsay; under Fed. R. Evid. 901, 902 for lack of authentication; and under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 1002 for lack of best evidence, including corroborating documentation.
`
`Patent Owner has produced no knowledgeable witness to testify in this proceeding
`
`or to be cross-examined as to these statements. Exhibit 2006 is also objected to
`
`insofar as it cites or refers to other objectionable exhibits and testimony.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 2007 (Declaration of Martin Kashnowski) is objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for
`
`lack of foundation as to matters discussed therein; under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and insufficient bases
`
`for such testimony; and under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay. Exhibit
`
`2007 is also objected to insofar as it cites or refers to other objectionable exhibits
`
`and testimony.
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 2008 (U.S. Patent No. 2,596,063) is objected to under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation as to matters discussed therein; under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and insufficient bases for
`
`such testimony; and under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`8.
`
`Exhibit 2010 (Excerpt from Supplemental Initial Expert Report of
`
`Gregory Davis Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,675,434, 6,836,926 and 6,973,698 in
`
`In the Matter of Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403
`
`for lack of relevance; Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation; and under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 1002 for lack of best evidence.
`
`9.
`
`Exhibit 2011 (Order No. 94 from In the Matter of Certain Wiper
`
`Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International Trade Commission) is
`
`objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation as to matters
`
`discussed therein; under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of relevance; under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay, and under Fed. R. Evid. 1002 for lack
`
`of best evidence.
`
`10. Exhibit 2013 (Excerpt from Declaration of Gregory Davis, Ex. 1013
`
`in IPR 2016-00034) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for lack of
`
`relevance.
`
`11. Exhibit 2014 (Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC’s Amended Response to
`
`Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s First Set of Interrogatories (No. 1),
`
`dated June 2, 2015, in Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc., in the District
`
`of Delaware, Case No. 12-574 (LPS)) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402,
`
`403 for lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation such
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`as testimony of a witness with personal knowledge; under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and insufficient bases
`
`for such testimony; under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay; under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 901, 902 for lack of authentication; and under Fed. R. Evid. 1002 for lack
`
`of best evidence of
`
`the purported products described
`
`therein,
`
`including
`
`corroborating documentation. Patent Owner has produced no knowledgeable
`
`witness to testify or to be cross-examined as to the purported products described in
`
`Exhibit 2014 nor has Patent Owner set forth specifications or other documentation
`
`underlying the features of the purported products described in Exhibit 2014.
`
`12. Exhibit 2015 (Exhibit 24 to Complaint in In the Matter of Certain
`
`Wiper Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission (claim charts)) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for
`
`lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation such as
`
`testimony of a witness with personal knowledge; under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and insufficient bases for
`
`such testimony; under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay; under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901, 902 for lack of authentication; and under Fed. R. Evid. 1002 for lack of
`
`best evidence of the purported products described therein, including corroborating
`
`documentation. Patent Owner has produced no knowledgeable witness to testify or
`
`to be cross-examined as to the purported products described in Exhibit 2015 nor
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`has Patent Owner set forth specifications or other documentation underlying the
`
`features of the purported products described in Exhibit 2015.
`
`13. Exhibit 2016 (Exhibit 25 to Complaint in In the Matter of Certain
`
`Wiper Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission (claim charts)) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 for
`
`lack of relevance; under Fed. R. Evid. 602, 603 for lack of foundation such as
`
`testimony of a witness with personal knowledge; under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 for lack of qualified expert testimony and insufficient bases for
`
`such testimony; under Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 803, 804 as hearsay; under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901, 902 for lack of authentication; and under Fed. R. Evid. 1002 for lack of
`
`best evidence of the purported products described therein, including corroborating
`
`documentation. Patent Owner has produced no knowledgeable witness to testify or
`
`to be cross-examined as to the purported products described in Exhibit 2016 nor
`
`has Patent Owner set forth specifications or other documentation underlying the
`
`features of the purported products described in Exhibit 2016.
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`/
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`These objections have been timely made within five business days from the
`
`date of service of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Dated: July 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James R. Klaiber/
`James R. Klaiber
`Reg. No. 41,902
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, NY 10004
`T: (212) 837-6062
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Costco Wholesale Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00041
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on Friday, July 29, 2016, the foregoing document was
`
`served in its entirety by email on the attorneys of record for Patent Owner:
`
`• Patrick R. Colsher (patrick.colsher@shearman.com)
`
`• Mark Hannemann (mark.hannemann@shearman.com)
`
`/James R. Klaiber/
`Registration No. 41,902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`71465222
`
`9