UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00151
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00151
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner hereby objects to the
`
`following evidence that was submitted by Patent Owner with the “Patent Owner
`
`Response” in the above-captioned proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`(“the ’154 Patent”) is subject to inter partes review:
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Patent Owner’s Description
`
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`2007
`
`Email Chain Re: Invention Disclosure
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`Infringement chart created by
`Dr. Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of Avast Software and the
`’154 Patent
`Infringement chart created by Dr.
`Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of F-Secure and the ’154
`Patent
`’154 Patent Infringement chart
`regarding the products of Websense,
`Inc., served in Finjan v. Websense,
`Inc., 13-CV-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
`February 28, 2014
`’154 Patent Infringement chart
`regarding the products of Proofpoint,
`Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc.,
`served in Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,
`Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc.,
`13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.), April
`17, 2014
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901
`(authentication)
`Fed. R. Evid. 1002 (best
`evidence)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`2035
`
`Paragraphs 74 through 80 of
`Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 (bases
`of expert)
`A. Exhibit 2007—Email Chain Re: Invention Disclosure
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007 as lacking proper authentication under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 and as not the best evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Patent
`
`Owner has not presented any evidence that Exhibit 2007 is authentic, nor that the
`
`document is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902. Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to provide any evidence that pages 3 through 20 of Exhibit 2007 are the draft
`
`patent application referred to in the email of page 2 of Exhibit 2007.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2007 as hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`that does not fall under an exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803 or 804.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 2015 through 2018—Infringement Charts
`
`Exhibits 2015 through 2018 appear to be infringement charts Patent Owner
`
`provided in prior district court litigations unrelated to Petitioner. Petitioner objects
`
`to these exhibits as irrelevant to this proceeding under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`Petitioner further objects to these exhibits as hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 that
`
`does not fall under an exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803 or 804.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`C.
`
`Paragraphs 74 through 80 of Exhibit 2035—Declaration of Dr.
`Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Petitioner objects to paragraphs 74 through 80 of Exhibit 2035 under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703 as relying on improper evidence. In these paragraphs, Dr. Medvidovic
`
`offers testimony that relies on Exhibits 2015 through 2018, which, as discussed
`
`above, are irrelevant to this proceeding and constitute inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Accordingly, these portions of Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration are also irrelevant and
`
`constitute impermissible hearsay.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), these objections are being
`
`timely served within five (5) business days of service of the Patent Owner
`
`Response, which was served on August 31, 2016.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner’s Response relies upon evidence previously
`
`submitted in its Preliminary Response, Petitioner previously served timely
`
`objections to such evidence.
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Shouvik Biswas /
`Shouvik Biswas
` Registration No.: 68,439
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: (703) 760-7774
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached Petitioner’s Objection to Evidence
`
`Submitted with Patent Owner Response was served as of the below date on the
`
`Patent Owner via e-mail (by agreement) to the following counsel of record for the
`
` / Kim Helenius /
`Kim Helenius
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Phone: (650) 752-1712
`Fax: (650) 752-1812
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`svdocketing@kramerlevin.com
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2016
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
