`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S CORRECTED NOTICE OF
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), meet and confers of counsel of record,
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`and the February 7, 2017 telephonic hearing with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board, Petitioner, Arista Networks, Inc., (“Petitioner”), hereby submits its
`
`corrected notice of objections to certain exhibits which Patent Owner, Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Cisco” or “Patent Owner”), submitted in its Patent Owner
`
`Response filed September 30, 2016, in connection with IPR2016-00309.
`
`Petitioner renews its objections to Exhibits 2001 through 2004 and
`
`incorporates here by reference Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to Evidence (June
`
`24, 2016).
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2016 (Control Plane Policing Implementation Best
`
`Practices, Cisco Systems, November 11, 2014)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2016 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2016 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2017 (Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-OS Security
`
`Config. Guide, Release 6.x, Cisco Systems, First Published July 27, 2012, Last
`
`Modified April 16, 2014)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2017 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2017 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2018 (Cisco IOS Software Configuration Guide,
`
`Release 12.2(33)SXH, Cisco Systems)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2018 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2018 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2019 (Infrastructure Protection on Cisco IOS
`
`Software-Based Platforms, Cisco Systems, 2006)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2019 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2020 (Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-OS Quality of
`
`Service Configuration Guide, Cisco Systems, April 2014)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2020 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2020 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2021 (Cisco IOS Quality of Service Solutions
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Configuration Guide, Release 12.2)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2021 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2022 (Deploying Control Plane Policing, Cisco
`
`Systems, 2005)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2022 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2022 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2023 (CoPP on Nexus 7000 Series Switches, Viral
`
`Bhutta, Cisco TAC Engineer, September 4, 2014)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2023 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2023 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2032 (Examples of Arista’s Copying of Cisco’s
`
`Command Expressions)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2032 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2032 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible. Patent Owner seeks to use Exhibit 2032 as evidence of
`
`product command-line expressions. This is not relevant to any of the issues in this
`
`proceeding, as none of the challenged claims requires any particular product
`
`command-line expression.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2032 under FRE 403 because any
`
`relevance it may have is outweighed by the risk of causing unfair prejudice,
`
`wasting time, and confusing the Board. In particular, Patent Owner relies on
`
`Exhibit 2032 solely to support its contentions regarding secondary considerations
`
`of nonobviousness, but none of the challenged claims requires the command-line
`
`expressions described in Exhibit 2032. Because evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, including evidence of alleged copying, must be
`
`tied to the subject matter of the patent claims, evidence of such unclaimed
`
`functionality is not relevant to the Board’s analysis of whether the disclosure of the
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder, Moberg, and/or Hendel references invalidate claims of the
`
`’668 patent. Thus, Patent Owner’s use of Exhibit 2032 appears to be designed
`
`solely to cause unfair prejudice, waste time, and confuse the Board with allegations
`
`from an unrelated litigation between the parties.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2032 under FRE 901 because Patent Owner
`
`has not submitted evidence that the Exhibit is authentic, or that the Exhibit is self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2032 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay to the extent Patent Owner intends to offer the Exhibit for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, including date information. Exhibit 2032 does not fall
`
`under any exception to the rule against hearsay as recited in FRE 803, 804, 805 or
`
`807.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2033 (Cisco’s Motion for Partial Summary
`
`Judgment, Cisco v. Arista, Case No. 5:14-cv-5344-BLF (PSG))
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2033 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible. Patent Owner seeks to use Exhibit 2033 as evidence
`
`relating to product command-line expressions. This is not relevant to any of the
`
`issues in this proceeding, as none of the challenged claims requires any particular
`
`product command-line expression. In addition, Exhibit 2033 is a motion by Patent
`
`Owner for partial summary judgment in unrelated district court litigation, which
`
`was denied in any event. See Order (1) Denying Cisco’s Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment and (2) Denying Arista’s Motion for Partial Summary
`
`6
`
`
`
`Judgment, Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (N.D.
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`Cal. Aug. 23, 2016).
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 403 because any
`
`relevance it may have is outweighed by the risk of causing unfair prejudice,
`
`wasting time, and confusing the Board. In particular, Patent Owner relies on
`
`Exhibit 2033 solely to support its contentions regarding secondary considerations
`
`of nonobviousness, but none of the challenged claims requires the command-line
`
`expressions discussed in Exhibit 2033. Because evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, including evidence of alleged copying, must be
`
`tied to the subject matter of the patent claims, evidence of such unclaimed
`
`functionality is not relevant to the Board’s analysis of whether the disclosure of the
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder, Moberg, and/or Hendel references invalidate claims of the
`
`’668 patent. Thus, Patent Owner’s use of Exhibit 2033 appears to be designed
`
`solely to cause unfair prejudice, waste time, and confuse the Board with allegations
`
`from an unrelated litigation between the parties.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 901 because Patent Owner
`
`has not submitted evidence that the Exhibit is authentic, or that the Exhibit is self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay to the extent Patent Owner intends to offer the Exhibit for the
`
`7
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, including date information. Exhibit 2033 does not fall
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`under any exception to the rule against hearsay as recited in FRE 803, 804, 805 or
`
`807.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2037 (EOS – Industry Standard CLI)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2037 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2037 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible. Patent Owner seeks to use Exhibit 2037 as evidence
`
`relating to product command-line expressions. This is not relevant to any of the
`
`issues in this proceeding, as none of the challenged claims requires any particular
`
`product command-line expression.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2037 under FRE 403 because any
`
`relevance it may have is outweighed by the risk of causing unfair prejudice,
`
`wasting time, and confusing the Board. In particular, Patent Owner relies on
`
`Exhibit 2037 solely to support its contentions regarding secondary considerations
`
`of nonobviousness, but none of the challenged claims requires the command-line
`
`expressions discussed in Exhibit 2037. Because evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, including evidence of alleged copying, must be
`
`tied to the subject matter of the patent claims, evidence of such unclaimed
`
`functionality is not relevant to the Board’s analysis of whether the disclosure of the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Amara, CoreBuilder, Moberg, and/or Hendel references invalidate claims of the
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`’668 patent. Thus, Patent Owner’s use of Exhibit 2037 appears to be designed
`
`solely to cause unfair prejudice, waste time, and confuse the Board with allegations
`
`from an unrelated litigation between the parties.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2037 under FRE 901 because Patent Owner
`
`has not submitted evidence that the Exhibit is authentic, or that the Exhibit is self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2037 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay to the extent Patent Owner intends to offer the Exhibit for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, including date information. Exhibit 2037 does not fall
`
`under any exception to the rule against hearsay as recited in FRE 803, 804, 805 or
`
`807.
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit No. 2045 (Complaint for Copyright and Patent
`
`Infringement, Cisco v. Arista, Case No. 5-14-cv-05344)
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit No. 2045 under the following Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence:
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 401 and 402 as irrelevant and
`
`therefore inadmissible. Patent Owner seeks to use Exhibit 2045 as evidence of
`
`allegations made by Cisco in Case No. 5:14-cv-05344. These allegations are not
`
`9
`
`
`
`relevant to any of the issues in this proceeding, and that case does not involve the
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`’668 patent or the subject matter of any of the challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 403 because any
`
`relevance it may have is outweighed by the risk of causing unfair prejudice,
`
`wasting time, and confusing the Board. In particular, Patent Owner relies on
`
`Exhibit 2045 solely to support its contentions regarding secondary considerations
`
`of nonobviousness, but the allegations set forth in Exhibit 2045 do not relate to the
`
`challenged claims, which are not a subject of that litigation. Because evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness must be tied to the subject matter of
`
`the patent claims, evidence of unrelated litigation between the parties is not
`
`relevant to the Board’s analysis of whether the disclosure of the Amara,
`
`CoreBuilder, Moberg, and/or Hendel references invalidate claims of the ’668
`
`patent. Thus, Patent Owner’s use of Exhibit 2045 appears to be designed solely to
`
`cause unfair prejudice, waste time, and confuse the Board with allegations from an
`
`unrelated litigation between the parties.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 901 because Patent Owner
`
`has not submitted evidence that the Exhibit is authentic, or that the Exhibit is self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 801 and 802 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay to the extent Patent Owner intends to offer the Exhibit for the
`
`10
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted, including date information. Exhibit 2045 does not fall
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`under any exception to the rule against hearsay as recited in FRE 803, 804, 805 or
`
`807.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /s/Lauren A. Degnan
`Lauren A. Degnan
`Reg. No. 40,584
`W. Karl Renner
`Reg. No. 41,265
`Adam Shartzer
`Reg. No. 57,264
`Ralph A. Phillips
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: 202-783-5070
`Facsimile: 202-783-2331
`Email: IPR40963-0006IP3@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Attorney Docket No: 40963-0006IP3
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`9, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Corrected Notice of
`
`Objections to Evidence was provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jon E. Wright
`Daniel S. Block
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Email: lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: dblock-PTAB@skgf.com
`Email: ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`