throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of TQ Delta, LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC,
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-010201
`Patent No. 9,014,243
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`1 DISH Network, L.L.C., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00254, and Comcast
`Cable Communications, L.L.C., Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises L.L.C., Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a
`Petition in IPR2017-00418, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`serves the following objections to evidence Petitioners Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.
`
`served on June 8, 2017. A chart listing Patent Owner’s objections and its basis for
`
`the objections is provided below.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Objection
`Relevance: Ex. 1021 is not cited in the Reply, and is
`therefore not relevant. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E. 403; 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1021 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Relevance: Ex. 1022 is cited in Petitioners’ Reply to
`allegedly show what would have been obvious to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art, but it was published almost
`10 years after the priority date of the ’158 patent (2008 vs.
`1999). Because Ex. 1022 is almost 10 years too late, it is not
`relevant. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E. 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`Relevance: Ex. 1023, according to Petitioner, provides new
`evidence going to the alleged invalidity of challenged claims.
`It is improperly introduced in the Reply. It is not relevant
`and improper. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; 37
`C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1023 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Relevance: Ex. 1024, according to Petitioner, provides new
`evidence going to the alleged invalidity of challenged claims.
`It is improperly introduced by the Reply. It is not relevant
`and improper. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; 37
`C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1024 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Objection
`Relevance: Ex. 1025 is not cited in the Reply, and is
`therefore not relevant. Also, there is no evidence that Ex.
`1025 was ever published. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E. 403; 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1025 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Relevance: ¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 19, 23, 27, 30–36, 39–45, 53,
`and 59 are not cited in the Reply, and are therefore not
`relevant. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E. 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`¶¶ 3, 7, 19–14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 37, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47,
`48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55–58 are directed to provide new
`evidence going to the alleged invalidity of challenged claims.
`These sections are improperly introduced by the Reply.
`These sections are not relevant and improper. F.R.E. 402;
`F.R.E 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`Relevance: Ex. 1028, according to Petitioner, provides new
`evidence going to the alleged invalidity of challenged claims.
`It is improperly introduced by the Reply. It is not relevant
`and improper. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; 37
`C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1028 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Relevance: Ex. 1029, according to Petitioner, provides new
`evidence going to the alleged invalidity of challenged claims.
`It is improperly introduced by the Reply. It is not relevant
`and improper. F.R.E. 402; F.R.E 403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; 37
`C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`Authentication: Ex. 1029 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Authentication: Ex. 1030 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`Authentication: Ex. 1032 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1033
`
`Objection
`Authentication: Ex. 1033 is not self-authenticating and has
`not been authenticated. F.R.E. 901.
`
`
`
`These objections are made within 5 business days from service of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`aforementioned exhibits, June 8, 2017.
`
`
`Dated: June 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was
`
`served on June 15, 2017 in its entirety electronically on:
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel. 214-651-5533
`Fax 214-200-0853
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com 
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Dish-TQDelta@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`John M. Baird
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`Tel. 972-739-8649
`Russell Emerson
`Tel. 214-651-5328
`Jamie H. McDole
`Tel. 972-651-5121
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Fax 972-692-9156
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`Stephen McBride
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`smcbride@cooley.com
`
`
`Christopher Tyson
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01020
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`JMBaird@duanemorris.com
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 202-776-7819
`Fax 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 15, 2017
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket