UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00569
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner hereby objects to exhibits submitted by
`
`Patent Owner with its Response, exhibits designated by Patent Owner as Exhibit
`
`Nos. 2031-2087 (with some exhibit numbers in this range being unused).
`
`
`
`The grounds for objection are as follows:
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit
`No.
`Exhibit 2051
`
`Grounds for Objection
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements in this exhibit to prove the
`truth of matters described therein, the statements are
`hearsay: e.g., ¶ 29 (“Greg suggested that we at Chrimar
`begin preparing a draft of the provisional patent
`application”); ¶ 29 (“Greg suggested that we obtain a
`confidentiality agreement with Wisne before showing
`them our new inventions”); ¶ 35 (“Mr. Boenke sent me a
`letter outlining a five-phase plan for developing a
`prototype and a production pilot”); ¶ 37 (“American
`Broadband offered to refine the loop drive and return
`sense circuitry”); ¶ 42 (“based on our discussions, which
`[Mr. Boenke] acknowledged in a letter addressed to me
`on March 6, 1998”); ¶ 43 (“the March 6, 1998 letter
`confirms that we discussed with Mr. Boenke the
`returning of a digital identification from the EtherLockID
`to the hub end of the system”); ¶ 45 (entire paragraph);
`¶ 49 (“Mr. Boenke provided an updated quotation for the
`development of two printed circuit electronic
`assemblies”); ¶ 55 (“American Broadband confirmed that
`we had picked up demonstration breadboards”).
`Patent Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that these statements fall within any
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, §§ 42.22(a) and 42.23(a) require
`Chrimar to include in its Response “a detailed
`explanation of the significance of the evidence.” Chrimar
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`cites only to ¶¶ 7-9, 11, 13, 15-20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32-48,
`and 50-52 in its Response, and fails to cite or discuss the
`remaining paragraphs or explain their significance.
`Chrimar has therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §
`42.22(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) in submitting this
`exhibit, and all uncited paragraphs should be excluded.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, § 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments
`must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document,” and §§ 42.22(a) and
`42.23(a) require Chrimar to include in its Response “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`Chrimar cites generally to large paragraph ranges and to
`this entire exhibit in its Response, and in such general
`citations fails to discuss in detail the significance of any
`particular portions of the exhibit, thereby improperly
`incorporating by reference into its Response such large
`paragraph ranges and this entire exhibit. Chrimar has
`therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`42.22(a), and 42.23(a) in submitting this exhibit, and all
`paragraphs improperly incorporated by reference should
`be excluded.
`Lack of Personal Knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 602. This
`exhibit contains testimony for which the declarant lacks
`personal knowledge: e.g., ¶ 23 (“Marshall met with
`Chrimar’s patent attorney, Greg Schivley, to disclose our
`invention”); ¶ 24 (“During that meeting, Marshall also
`informed Greg of Chrimar’s intention to demonstrate
`these new concepts to a potential customer”); ¶ 24
`(“Greg suggested that we obtain a confidentiality
`agreement with Wisne”); ¶ 31 (“Mr. Boenke sent
`Marshall at Chrimar a letter outlining a five-phase plan
`for developing a prototype and a production pilot”); ¶ 38
`(“Marshall instructed Mr. Boenke that we wanted a
`circuit without inductors.”); ¶ 39 (“based on our
`discussions, which [Mr. Boenke] acknowledged in a
`letter addressed to Marshall on March 6, 1998”); ¶ 47
`(“On April 9, 1998, Marshall faxed a draft copy of our
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`patent application to Chrimar’s patent attorney at
`Harness Dickey, Gregory Schivley.”).
`
`Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness. Fed. R. Evid.
`701(c). This exhibit contains impermissible expert
`opinion testimony by a lay witness in that it that requires
`scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
`within the scope of Rule 702: e.g., ¶ 5 (“The EtherLock
`products were covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 5,406,260”);
`¶ 6 (entire paragraph).
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements in this exhibit to prove the
`truth of matters described therein, the statements are
`hearsay: e.g., ¶ 23 (“Greg suggested that we at Chrimar
`begin preparing a draft of the provisional patent
`application”); ¶ 24 (“During that meeting, Marshall also
`informed Greg of Chrimar’s intention to demonstrate
`these new concepts to a potential customer”); ¶ 23
`(“Greg suggested that we obtain a confidentiality
`agreement with Wisne”); ¶ 31 (“Mr. Boenke sent
`Marshall at Chrimar a letter outlining a five-phase plan
`for developing a prototype and a production pilot”); ¶ 34
`(“American Broadband offered to refine the loop drive
`and return sense circuitry”); ¶ 39 (“based on our
`discussions, which [Mr. Boenke] acknowledged in a
`letter addressed to Marshall on March 6, 1998”); ¶ 40
`(“For example, the March 6, 1998, letter confirms that
`Chrimar discussed with Mr. Boenke the returning of a
`digital identification from the EtherLockID (ELID) to the
`hub end of the system.”); ¶ 42 (entire paragraph); ¶ 45
`(“Mr. Boenke provided an updated quotation for the
`development of two printed circuit electronic
`assemblies”); ¶ 51 (“American Broadband confirmed that
`we had picked up demonstration breadboards”).
`Patent Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that these statements fall within any
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2053
`
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, § 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments
`must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document,” and §§ 42.22(a) and
`42.23(a) require Chrimar to include in its Response “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`Chrimar cites generally to this entire exhibit in its
`Response, and in such general citations fails to discuss in
`detail the significance of any particular portions of the
`exhibit, thereby improperly incorporating this entire
`exhibit by reference into its Response. Chrimar has
`therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`42.22(a), and 42.23(a) in submitting this exhibit, and all
`paragraphs improperly incorporated by reference should
`be excluded.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because there are no particular portions of this exhibit
`cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on statements in this exhibit to prove the
`truth of matters described therein, the statements are
`hearsay: e.g., ¶ 7 (“Mr. Cummings contacted me in early
`January of 1998 to notify me that he and John
`Austermann had ideas for some new inventions”); ¶ 8
`(“Mr. Cummings told me about new concepts which
`were an improvement on Chrimar’s original EtherLock
`System”); ¶¶ 9-10, 12 (entire paragraph); ¶ 14 (“Mr.
`Cummings let me know that they intended to show their
`new invention to a company called Wisne Design”).
`Patent Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that these statements fall within any
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, § 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2054
`
`must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document,” and §§ 42.22(a) and
`42.23(a) require Chrimar to include in its Response “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`Chrimar cites generally to this entire exhibit in its
`Response, and in such general citations fails to discuss in
`detail the significance of any particular portions of the
`exhibit, thereby improperly incorporating this entire
`exhibit by reference into its Response. Chrimar has
`therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`42.22(a), and 42.23(a) in submitting this exhibit, and all
`paragraphs improperly incorporated by reference should
`be excluded.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because there are no particular portions of this exhibit
`cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, §§ 42.22(a) and 42.23(a) require
`Chrimar to include in its Response “a detailed
`explanation of the significance of the evidence.” Chrimar
`cites only to ¶¶ 33, 46, 47, 54-59, 61-88, 89-98, 114-18,
`119-28, 129-36, 138-41, 144, 145, 148, 149, 154-61, and
`165-70 in its Response, and fails to cite or discuss the
`remaining paragraphs or explain their significance.
`Chrimar has therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §
`42.22(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) in submitting this
`exhibit, and all uncited paragraphs should be excluded.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, § 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments
`must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document,” and §§ 42.22(a) and
`42.23(a) require Chrimar to include in its Response “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2056
`
`Exhibit 2061/2062
`(listed as Exhibit 2061
`in Patent Owner’s
`Exhibit List but
`appears to be cited as
`Exhibit 2062 in Patent
`Owner’s Response)
`
`Chrimar cites generally to large paragraph ranges in its
`Response, e.g., ¶¶ 61-88 and ¶¶ 89-98, and in such
`general citations fails to discuss in detail their
`significance, thereby improperly incorporating such
`paragraphs by reference into its Response. Chrimar has
`therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`42.22(a), 42.23(a) in submitting this exhibit, and all
`paragraphs improperly incorporated by reference should
`be excluded.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Dell objects to Chrimar submitting this exhibit without
`complying with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. subpart
`42. Specifically, § 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments
`must not be incorporated by reference from one
`document into another document,” and §§ 42.22(a) and
`42.23(a) require Chrimar to include in its Response “a
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.”
`Chrimar cites generally to this entire exhibit in its
`Response, and in such general citations fails to discuss in
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2063
`
`Exhibit 2064
`
`Exhibit 2065
`
`detail the significance of any particular portions of the
`exhibit, thereby improperly incorporating this entire
`exhibit by reference into its Response. Chrimar has
`therefore failed to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`42.22(a), and 42.23(a) in submitting this exhibit, and all
`portions of this exhibit that have been improperly
`incorporated by reference should be excluded.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because there are no particular portions of this 356-page
`exhibit cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2066
`
`Exhibit 2067
`
`Exhibit 2068
`
`Exhibit 2069
`
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2070
`
`Exhibit 2071
`
`Exhibit 2072
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2073
`
`Exhibit 2074
`
`Exhibit 2076
`
`
`
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2079
`
`Exhibit 2080
`
`Exhibit 2081
`
`Exhibit 2082
`
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`Exhibit 2083
`
`Exhibit 2084
`
`Exhibit 2085
`
`Exhibit 2086
`
`Exhibit 2087
`
`
`
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time.
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner has
`not produced evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`this exhibit is a true and correct copy of what Patent
`Owner purports it to be.
`
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). To the extent Patent
`Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit is not
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially outweighed
`by unfair prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`
`November 30, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Gilbert A. Greene
`Gilbert A. Greene (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 48,366
`James G. Warriner (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 72,833
`Stephanie N. DeBrow (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 63,555
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: 512-474-5201
`Fax: 512-536-4598
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`jim.warriner@nortonrosefulbright.com
`stephanie.debrow@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Dell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00569
`Patent 8,942,107
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), this is to certify that on November 30, 2016
`
`I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S
`
`RESPONSE by electronic mail on the following:
`
`
`
`Justin S. Cohen
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`Email: Justin.cohen@tklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Chrimar
`Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`Email: Hoffmann@reising.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Chrimar
`Systems, Inc.
`
`/s/ Gilbert A. Greene
`Gilbert A. Greene
`Reg. No. 48,366
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15