`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00952
`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner General Electric Co., hereby
`
`objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence with Patent Owner United
`
`Technologies Corp.’s Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter Partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,121,412 (IPR2016-00952).
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit UTC-2001 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2002 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2003 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2004 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2005 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2006 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2007 Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the exhibit is or what it
`
`allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2009 FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2010 FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2011 FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: the exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish Desai/
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Christopher Pepe (Reg. No. 73,851)
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`8
`
`Dated: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 10, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SERVED
`
`WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW was served via electronic mail, upon the following:
`
`M. Andrew Holtman
`Jeffrey C. Totten
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`UTC-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`James D. Stein
`Jason E. Stach
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P
`271 17th Street, NW
`Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363
`UTC-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`Daniel C. Cooley
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`UTC-IPR@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ c
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9