`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`Filed April 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Evolved Wireless LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-007571
`Patent 7,881,236 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, PETER P. CHEN, and
`TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) TO
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS 2004, 2006, and 2009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2016-01345 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00757
`Patent 7,881,236 B2
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the admissibility of
`
`Patent Owner’s exhibits 2004, 2006, and 2009 as follows.
`
`EXHIBIT 2004
`(Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Paul S. Min)
`
`Under FED. R. EVID. 401 and 402, Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the
`
`following portions of Exhibit 2004: 104:19-106:6, 107:20-108:22, 109:11-13, 137:24-
`
`139:18, 141:4-148:3. In these portions of the transcript, Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`questioned Dr. Paul Min on Min Exhibit 8 to Dr. Min’s deposition. Patent Owner did
`
`not file Exhibit 8 with the Board. Therefore, the objected-to portions of Exhibit 2004
`
`are not relevant to any issue in this proceeding.2
`
`EXHIBIT 2006
`(Declaration of Dr. Todor Cooklev)
`
`
`
`Under FED. R. EVID. 702, Petitioner objects to the admissibility of paragraphs
`
`35, 93-99, and 108-117 of Exhibit 2006. These paragraphs contain conclusory
`
`opinions that are inadmissible under Federal Circuit precedent. In addition, these
`
`paragraphs are not based upon sufficient facts or data, are not the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods, and are not applied reliably to the facts of this inter partes
`
`review. These opinions are also inadmissible to the extent they apply a claim
`
`
`2
`Filing Exhibit 8 will not cure this objection because Exhibit 8 is itself
`inadmissible. As required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a), Petitioner’s counsel timely
`objected to the admissibility of Min Exhibit 8. See Ex. 2004 at 139:19-140:10; 150:10-
`16. Patent Owner’s counsel did not provide evidence to cure the objection during the
`deposition.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00757
`Patent 7,881,236 B2
`
`interpretation that is inconsistent with any of the Board’s claim constructions.
`
`In addition, under FED. R. EVID. 401 and 402, Petitioner objects to the
`
`admissibility of paragraphs 17 and 18 of Exhibit 2006. Paragraphs 17 and 18 contain
`
`opinions on inapplicable legal standards. Therefore, these opinions are irrelevant.
`
`EXHIBIT 2009
`(Petition Filed in IPR2016-01228)
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2009 under FED. R. EVID. 401
`
`and 402. This exhibit is a petition for inter partes review filed by companies that are not
`
`parties to the present proceeding. Therefore, this exhibit is not relevant to any issue in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admissibility of Exhibit 2009 under FED. R. EVID.
`
`802. This exhibit incorporates or conveys inadmissible hearsay that is offered to prove
`
`the truth of matters allegedly asserted therein. For example, Patent Owner states,
`
`“‘Only when’ seems indistinguishable from ‘only if ’ (and indeed in Apple’s IPR2016-
`
`01228 Petition, Apple uses the phrase ‘only when’ when discussing a narrower
`
`construction).” Paper 22 at 25 (citing Ex. 2009 at 22).
`
`
`April 3, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Charles M. McMahon /
`Charles M. McMahon (Reg. 44,926)
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00757
`Patent 7,881,236 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that I sent a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1) TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS 2004, 2006, and 2009 on April
`
`3, 2017 by electronic mail to the attorneys of record for the Patent Owner at the
`
`following e-mail addresses:
`
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`
`rschultz@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`/Hersh H. Mehta/
`Hersh H. Mehta (Reg. 62,336)
`
`
`
`
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
