`
`
`
`
`
`
`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