`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2016-010211
`Patent No. 8,718,158
`_____________
`
`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 IPR2017-00255, 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 IPR2017-00417, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`aforementioned exhibits, June 8, 2017.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Patent Owner’s Objection To Evidence Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158
`
`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
`
`