UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`1
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`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
`not a party to that litigation and was not given an
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`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
`cross examination of testimony prepared for this
`proceeding).
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`3
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`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 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).
`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,
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`4
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`Registration Number 41,828
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 773-4148
`HP-MTel-891IPR-DLA@dlapiper.com
`
`Brian K. Erickson
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`(512) 457-7000
`HP-MTel-891IPR-DLA@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`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
`
` /James M. Heintz/
`James M. Heintz
`
`Reg. No. 41,828
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`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
`
`
`
`WEST\272015464.5
`
`1
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
