`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner hereby objects to exhibits submitted by
`
`Patent Owner with its Preliminary Response, exhibits designated by Patent Owner
`
`as Exhibit Nos. 2002-2009.
`
`
`
`The grounds for objection are as follows:
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit
`No.
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Grounds for Objection
`
`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 the document is dated 2015, which is 20 years
`after the filing date of the patent at issue, and does not
`purport to represent the state of the art at the time of the
`filing date of the patent at issue.
`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
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`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 the document is dated 2012, which is 17 years
`after the filing date of the patent at issue, and does not
`purport to represent the state of the art at the time of the
`filing date of the patent at issue.
`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 the document is dated 2002, which is 7 years
`after the filing date of the patent at issue, and does not
`purport to represent the state of the art at the time of the
`filing date of the patent at issue.
`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.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admission of Exhibit 2005,
`on the additional basis that (1) Petitioner was not and is
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`opportunity to depose Dr. Min, and (2) Petitioner is not
`permitted to depose Dr. Min as a part of routine
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing only
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`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.
`
`Improper Expert Opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702. To the
`extent Patent Owner relies on this exhibit as expert
`testimony, Patent Owner has not offered or established
`that the witness is qualified as an expert in the area of the
`offered testimony.
`
`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 an inventor’s testimony is irrelevant to claim
`construction.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admission of Exhibit 2006,
`on the additional basis that (1) Petitioner was not and is
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`opportunity to depose Dr. Hays, and (2) Petitioner is not
`permitted to depose Dr. Hays as a part of routine
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing only
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`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.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admission of Exhibit 2007,
`on the additional basis that (1) Petitioner was not and is
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`opportunity to depose Dr. Petrovic, and (2) Petitioner is
`not permitted to depose Dr. Petrovic as a part of routine
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing only
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`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.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admission of Exhibit 2008,
`on the additional basis that (1) Petitioner was not and is
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`opportunity to depose Dr. Petrovic, and (2) Petitioner is
`not permitted to depose Dr. Petrovic as a part of routine
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing only
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner also objects to the admission of Exhibit 2009,
`on the additional basis that (1) Petitioner was not and is
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`opportunity to depose Dr. Petrovic, and (2) Petitioner is
`not permitted to depose Dr. Petrovic as a part of routine
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii) (authorizing only
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /Charles W. Griggers/
`Charles W. Griggers
`Reg. No. 47,283
`Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP
`400 N. Interstate Pkwy, Suite 1500
`Atlanta, GA 30339
`(770) 933-9500
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Dan R. Gresham
`Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP
`400 N. Interstate Pkwy, Suite 1500
`Atlanta, GA 30339
`(770) 933-9500
`charles.griggers@thomashorstemeyer.com (email)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`
`
`Objections to Exhibits Submitted With Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response were
`
`served on October 5, 2016, via electronic mail, per agreement of the parties, to
`
`Kelly L. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Road
`North Potomac, MD 20878Tel.: 703-
`867-1886
`Fax: 301-340-3022
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`Attorney for PATENT OWNER
`
` /Charles W. Griggers/
`Charles W. Griggers
`Reg. No. 47,283
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`counsel for the following addresses:
`
`John R. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Road
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel.: 703-867-1886
`Fax: 301-340-3022
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`Attorney for PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`By: