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 No. 7,224,668
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Cisco Systems, Inc. objects to the admissibility of the
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`
`following evidence Petitioner Arista Networks, Inc. submitted before the
`
`institution of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). These objections are made within
`
`ten business days from the Decision to Institute issued on June 11, 2016. Patent
`
`Owner asks the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny admission and
`
`consideration of the following documents on the following bases:
`
`
`
`1. Exhibit 1002: Lin Declaration
`Patent Owner objects to this document to the extent Petitioner relies on the
`
`exhibits cited therein for the truth of the matter asserted. Patent Owner objects to
`
`such contents as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Lin Declaration because there has not been an
`
`adequate showing that his testimony is the product of reliable facts or data and
`
`there is no indication that the testimony will help the Board understand the
`
`evidence or determine a fact in issue. FRE 401, 403, 702.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the Lin Declaration to the extent it relies on Exhibits
`
`1006, 1008, and 1009 because they are inadmissible under FRE 401, 402, 403,
`
`801, 801, 901, 902, 1002, 1003, and 1004, as discussed below, and/or are
`
`inadmissible as not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`Further, Petitioner has not established that these exhibits reasonably would be
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`relied upon by experts in the field. Therefore, these portions of the Lin Declaration
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`are inadmissible under FRE 702 and FRE 703.
`
`Patent Owner objects to ¶¶ 76-89 of the Lin Declaration as irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time
`
`under FRE 403, because they are not relevant to any issue remaining in this
`
`proceeding, such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claims, or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art.
`
`2. Exhibit 1006: U.S. Patent No. 6,970,943 (“Subramanian”)
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because it is not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art.
`
`3. Exhibit 1008: IETF RFC 2661, “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
`‘L2TP’” (“IETF RFC 2661”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because it is not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as
`
`patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
`
`or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1008 as irrelevant to these
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`
`proceedings because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1008 qualifies as a
`
`prior art publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because Petitioner did not offer
`
`competent evidence to show that Exhibit 1008 was publicly available before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’668 patent, November 7, 2002, Petitioner has not
`
`established that Exhibit 1008 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this IPR
`
`proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1008 reference irrelevant to these proceedings
`
`pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. Specifically, to the extent that Petitioner relies
`
`on dates contained within Exhibit 1008, those dates are hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and inadmissible under FRE 802.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`4. Exhibit 1009: 3Com CoreBuilder 3500 Implementation Guide, 3Com
`MSD Technical Publications, November 1999 (“CoreBuilder”)
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1009 as irrelevant to these
`
`proceedings because Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1009 qualifies as a
`
`prior art publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because Petitioner did not offer
`
`competent evidence to show that Exhibit 1009 was publicly available before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’668 patent, November 7, 2002, Petitioner has not
`
`established that Exhibit 1009 is a prior art printed publication eligible for this IPR
`
`proceeding, rendering the Exhibit 1009 reference irrelevant to these proceedings
`
`pursuant to FRE 401 and inadmissible under FRE 402.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, Patent Owner objects to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807. Specifically, to the extent that Petitioner relies
`
`on dates contained within Exhibit 1009, those dates are hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and inadmissible under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`
`FRE 901 because Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that the
`
`document is authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`To the extent Petitioner relies on the contents of this document to prove the
`
`content of the original document, Patent Owner objects to this document as not
`
`being an original document under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that falls under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`5. Exhibit 1010: Crawford Declaration
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1010 to the extent
`
`Petitioner relies on the exhibits cited therein for the truth of the matter asserted.
`
`Patent Owner objects to such contents, including without limitation Ms.
`
`Crawford’s references to the dates contained within Exhibit 1009, as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the admission of Exhibit 1010 under FRE 602
`
`because the Crawford Declaration does not present sufficient evidence to establish
`
`that Ms. Crawford has the requisite personal knowledge to testify as to the
`
`authenticity and public availability of Exhibit 1009.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00309
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633)
`Daniel S. Block (Reg. No. 68,395)
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Date: June 24, 2016
`
`1 100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 24, 2016, the attached Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) were served electronically Via e—mail upon the following:
`
`W. Karl Renner (Lead Attorney)
`Lauren A. Degnan (Back—up Counsel)
`IPR40963—0003IP4@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`fibllg,
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`
`Registration No. 50,633
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: June 24, 2016
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C.20005—3934
`(202) 371-2600
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
