UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
