`____________
`
`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 IPR2016-010211
`Patent 8,718,158
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 DISH Network, LLC, who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00255, and Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable
`Enterprises LLC, Verizon Services Corp., and ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a
`Petition in IPR2017-00417, have been joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta (“TQ Delta”) filed a motion to exclude numerous
`
`exhibits as irrelevant, being based on insufficient facts or data, and/or untimely
`
`filed. TQ Delta’s objections are without merit. Exhibits 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025,
`
`1028, and portions of Exhibit 2013 are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61. Exhibit 1026 and portions
`
`of Exhibit 2013 are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Fed. R. Evid. 705.
`
`Accordingly, TQ Delta lacks any legitimate grounds to exclude these exhibits.
`
`II.
`
`Argument
`
`A. Exhibit 1022
`
`Exhibit 1022 is a chapter titled “Physical Layer” from a book titled WiMedia
`
`UWB. The author of Exhibit 1022 is TQ Delta’s expert declarant, Dr. Short.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1022 is admissible because TQ Delta failed to timely
`preserve the objection.
`
`TQ Delta argues that Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant and untimely under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61. Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (“Mot.”), Paper 31, p. 2.
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Practice Guide”) states that a
`
`motion to exclude evidence must identify where in the record the objection was
`
`originally made. Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48765, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012); see
`
`2
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`also Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM 2012-00002,
`
`Paper 66, p. 60, (P.T.A.B. 2014). For evidence introduced during a deposition,
`
`“[a]n objection to the admissibility … must be made during the deposition.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(a).
`
`TQ Delta failed to timely object to Exhibit 1022. Exhibit 1022 is deposition
`
`evidence because it was first introduced during the deposition of Dr. Short. Ex.
`
`1027, 81:12-16. TQ Delta, however, failed to object to Exhibit 1022 at that time.
`
`Ex. 1027, 81:17-82:24. Because TQ Delta failed to timely object to Exhibit 1022,
`
`TQ Delta failed to preserve this objection. Accordingly, TQ Delta cannot now use
`
`its motion to exclude to suppress Exhibit 1022.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1022 is Relevant
`
`Even if TQ Delta had objected timely, TQ Delta still fails to show that
`
`Exhibit 1022 is inadmissible under the cited rules. Initially, TQ Delta argues that
`
`Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and Fed. R. Evid. 403 because it
`
`is not cited in the Petitioner’s Reply or Dr. Tellado’s Second Declaration. Mot., p.
`
`2. But the standard for relevance is not whether a piece of evidence is cited in a
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or an expert’s declaration. TQ Delta makes no attempt to
`
`address the proper standard for admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 402. TQ Delta
`
`does not dispute that Exhibit 1022 meets the burden for relevant evidence under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401. And TQ Delta does not explain how it would be unfairly
`
`3
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`prejudiced under Fed. R. Evid. 403 by admission of Exhibit 1022. Without analysis
`
`or explanation, TQ Delta fails to carry its burden as the movant. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.20(c).
`
`TQ Delta also argues that Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant because it is not prior
`
`art. Mot., p. 3. But, again, TQ Delta fails to address the proper standard for
`
`relevance. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Exhibit 1022 is relevant because Exhibit 1022
`
`provides context and relevant information relating to Dr. Short’s opinions as to
`
`what was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’158 Patent
`
`was filed. Ex. 1027, 87:17-90:5.
`
`Finally, TQ Delta provides no explanation or analysis regarding Exhibit
`
`1022 vis-à-vis 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 and § 42.61. Thus, TQ Delta again fails to carry
`
`its burden as the movant. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`Because TQ Delta fails to show that Exhibit 1022 is irrelevant or unfairly
`
`prejudicial, Exhibit 1022 is relevant and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1025 is Relevant
`
`Exhibit 1025 is a dissertation submitted to the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering and the Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford University by
`
`Petitioner’s expert Dr. Jose Tellado.
`
`TQ Delta alleges that Exhibit 1025 is irrelevant and untimely filed under
`
`4
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`because it has not been cited in the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. Mot., p. 4. TQ
`
`Delta argues in the alternative that Exhibit 1025 is not relevant because it is not
`
`prior art. Mot., p. 4. As already discussed above, such arguments do not address
`
`the proper standard for determining whether evidence is relevant. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401 and Fed. R. Evid. 402. TQ Delta also provides no explanation for its
`
`contention that Exhibit 1025 would be unfairly prejudicial to TQ Delta under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 403. Without addressing the proper standard or providing any explanation,
`
`TQ Delta fails to carry its burden as a moving party. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`Exhibit 1025 is relevant to the proceeding because it shows that phase
`
`scrambling was known to reduce PAR before the ’158 Patent was filed. See
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 20, pp. 12-13; Ex. 2013, 8:2-8; 15:8-13; 17:5-8 (“My
`
`thesis has a long list of people that were doing research in phase scrambling. That
`
`was prior art for my thesis. It was well known when I wrote my thesis.”). Whether
`
`phase scrambling was known to reduce PAR is an issue in this inter partes review.
`
`Exhibit 1025 includes a list of references cited by Dr. Tellado that demonstrate that
`
`phase scrambling was known to reduce PAR before the ’158 Patent was filed. Ex.
`
`1025, p. 152 (citing to Ex. 1023 as [77]) & p. 153 (citing to Ex. 1024 as [82]); see
`
`also Ex. 2013, 146:16-152:4 (testimony of Dr. Tellado explaining his citations in
`
`Ex. 1025 that refer to Ex. 1023 and 1024). Therefore, Exhibit 1025 is relevant and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`admissible.
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`Finally, Petitioner can “respond to arguments raised in the … patent owner
`
`response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Genzyme
`
`Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v BioMarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“The court has made clear that the Board may consider a prior art reference to
`
`show the state of the art at the time of the invention regardless of whether that
`
`reference was cited in the Board’s institution decision.”). Exhibit 1025 was filed in
`
`response to TQ Delta’s contention that phase scrambling to reduce PAR was not
`
`known. See Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 15, pp. 34, 43, and 49. Thus
`
`submission of Exhibit 1025 does not violate 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 or 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61. Accordingly, Exhibit 1025 is admissible.
`
`C.
`
`Paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 of Exhibit 1026 and pages 46:19-
`47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23 of Exhibit
`2013 are admissible.
`
`Exhibit 1026 is a Second Declaration by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Jose Tellado.
`
`Exhibit 2013 is a deposition transcript from Dr. Tellado’s second deposition.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1026 is admissible because TQ Delta failed to timely
`preserve the objection.
`
`TQ Delta’s attempt to exclude Exhibit 1026 should be denied because TQ
`
`Delta failed to preserve the objection it now raises. A motion to exclude must
`
`identify where in the record an objection was originally made. Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48767; see also Liberty Mutual, CBM 2012-00002, Paper 66, p. 61.
`
`6
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`Further, an objection to non-deposition evidence must identify the grounds for the
`
`objection. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 (b)(1); see Liberty Mutual, CBM 2012-00002, Paper
`
`66, p. 61; see also LKQ Corp. v. ClearLamp, LLC, IPR 2013-00020, Paper 17, p. 4
`
`(P.T.A.B. 2014).
`
`TQ Delta failed to preserve the objection that it argues in its motion. In
`
`particular, TQ Delta objected to paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 of Exhibit 1026
`
`under relevance grounds, including Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61. Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence, Paper 23, p. 2. But in its
`
`motion to exclude, TQ Delta pursues entirely unrelated grounds, specifically, Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 702, Fed. R. Evid. 705, 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.51(b)(1)(i) & 41.51(b)(1)(iii), and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b). Mot., p. 9. Because TQ Delta failed to properly object to
`
`paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 on these grounds, TQ Delta has not properly
`
`preserved this objection. Thus, TQ Delta cannot now use its motion to exclude as a
`
`vehicle to suppress portions of Exhibit 1026.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1026 and pages 46:19-47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-
`12, and 61:19-23 of Exhibit 2013 are based on sufficient facts and
`data and are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Even if TQ Delta had timely objected to paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 of
`
`Exhibit 1026 under Fed. R. Evid. 702, these paragraphs would remain admissible.
`
`TQ Delta argues that portions of Exhibit 1026, together with pages 46:19-
`
`47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23 of Exhibit 2013, should be
`
`7
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`excluded because they are based on insufficient facts or data. Mot., p. 9. TQ Delta
`
`alleges that these portions of Dr. Tellado’s testimony rely on a Matlab simulation
`
`for an 18,000-foot scenario and that the results of this simulation were not made
`
`available to TQ Delta. Mot., p. 7.
`
`But Dr. Tellado never relied on an 18,000-foot scenario. Indeed, nowhere in
`
`his declaration does Dr. Tellado ever refer to or rely upon any simulation of an
`
`18,000-foot scenario. Rather, Dr. Tellado’s opinions were based on his knowledge,
`
`education, and experience in the field of telecommunications generally and
`
`particularly in the area of PAR reduction. For example, Dr. Tellado provided a
`
`detailed explanation, based on simple math and logic, showing why a system
`
`employing Shively’s bit-spreading technique cannot be modeled using a Gaussian
`
`approximation. See Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 17-28. Dr. Tellado relied on that explanation in
`
`determining that Dr. Short’s use of a Gaussian approximation was unreliable and
`
`inappropriate. Id., ¶¶ 16, 29, & 42. And, Dr. Tellado’s opinions in paragraphs 43
`
`and 52 were driven by his analysis of a 12,000-foot scenario, for which all data and
`
`the corresponding Matlab script were provided to TQ Delta. See Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 44-
`
`51; Ex. 1034. Because all of the facts and data underlying Dr. Tellado’s opinions in
`
`paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 were disclosed to TQ Delta, those paragraphs
`
`remain admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 37 C.F.R § 42.65(b).
`
`TQ Delta further alleges that the above paragraphs of Exhibit 1026 and
`
`8
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`pages of Exhibit 2013 should be excluded because TQ Delta could not cross-
`
`examine Dr. Tellado regarding his criticism of Dr. Short’s opinions reflected in
`
`these paragraphs. Mot., p. 8. But TQ Delta had an opportunity to cross-examine
`
`Dr. Tellado during the deposition held on June 20, 2017 (Ex. 2013). Further, prior
`
`to the deposition, Dr. Tellado provided TQ Delta with a Matlab script (Exhibit
`
`1034) that generated a simulation of the 12,000-foot scenario. TQ Delta was free to
`
`modify Exhibit 1034 to simulate other scenarios, such as an 18,000-foot scenario.
`
`In fact, TQ Delta stated that it had modified and run Dr. Tellado’s script to
`
`generate a graph that included a new “Scenario 5.” Ex. 2013, 111:4-5; see Ex.
`
`2011; but see Ex. 2013, 155:4-10 (“So this code [Ex. 2010] cannot generate this
`
`plot [Ex. 2011]”). Thus, if TQ Delta believed that a simulation of an 18,000-foot
`
`scenario would have supported its expert’s analysis, then TQ Delta could have
`
`prepared such a scenario and challenged Dr. Tellado with it in deposition. In
`
`summary, TQ Delta had a complete opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tellado
`
`regarding:
`
` Dr. Tellado’s explanation (in Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 16-29) of why Dr. Short’s
`
`Gaussian approximation was inappropriate and unreliable, and
`
` Dr. Tellado’s simulation of a 12,000-foot scenario (in Ex. 1026, ¶¶ 42-
`
`52), which demonstrates that Shively’s bit-spreading technique
`
`significantly increases PAR.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`TQ Delta contends that Petitioner should have provided the simulation of an
`
`18,000-foot scenario as routine discovery because it was “relied on or cited by Dr.
`
`Tellado during his testimony”. Mot., p. 8; 37; C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(1)(i). TQ Delta’s
`
`contention is overbroad. A mere reference to an experiment does not require a
`
`production for the underlying data for that experiment. Corning Inc. v. DSM IP
`
`Assets B.V., IPR2013-00050, Paper 23, p.3 (P.T.A.B. 2013). This is the case here,
`
`because Dr. Tellado’s “quick estimate” of an 18,000-foot scenario amounts to
`
`nothing more than a reference to an experiment. Dr. Tellado did not indicate he
`
`ever relied on the “quick estimate” in his declaration (Ex. 1026). And, Petitioner
`
`did not rely on the “quick estimate” in the Petitioner’s Reply. Thus, the underlying
`
`data for the “quick estimate” is not subject to routine discovery under §
`
`41.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Further, Dr. Tellado stated that he performed the “quick estimate” using
`
`“similar techniques to the ones that I provided.” Ex. 2013, 47:10-11. These similar
`
`techniques were provided to TQ Delta in Exhibit 1034. TQ Delta could have used
`
`Exhibit 1034 to generate the 18,000-foot scenario. Thus, by providing Exhibit
`
`1034, Petitioner complied with § 41.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`Accordingly, paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 of Ex. 1026 and pages 46:19-
`
`47:16, 49:1-50:13, 51:5-56:23, 57:6-12, and 61:19-23 of Exhibit 2013 are
`
`admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Exhibits 1026 and 2013 should not be excluded under Fed. R.
`Evid. 705.
`
`TQ Delta argues that portions of Exhibits 1026 and 2013 should be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 705, which requires an expert “to disclose facts or data on
`
`cross-examination.” Fed. R. Evid. 705; see Mot., p. 9. But Dr. Tellado did not offer
`
`any opinions based on a simulation of an 18,000-foot scenario in his first or second
`
`declarations. Dr. Tellado first stated that he did a “quick estimate” of an “AWG26
`
`loop of 18,000 feet” during his second deposition. Ex. 1026, 46:10-16. Because Dr.
`
`Tellado did not rely on that “quick estimate” for any analysis or conclusion in his
`
`declarations, Fed. R. Evid. 705 does not apply to Dr. Tellado’s opinions of the
`
`“quick estimate” and should not be used to exclude portions of Exhibit 1026 or
`
`Exhibit 2013.
`
`Further, Dr. Tellado’s opinion that Gaussian approximation was unreliable
`
`was based on the analysis included in his second declaration – which disclosed all
`
`relevant facts. Ex. 1026, ¶¶17-28. TQ Delta fails to point to any instance where Dr.
`
`Tellado refused to discuss or disclose any facts or data pertaining to the opinions
`
`provided in his second declaration. Thus, Fed. R. Evid. 705 should not be used to
`
`exclude paragraphs 16, 29, 42, 43, and 52 of Exhibit 1026.
`
`D. Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 and Portions of Exhibit 2013 are
`Relevant and Admissible
`
`1.
`
`Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`Exhibit 1023 is a technical article published in IEEE Transactions of
`
`Communications. Exhibit 1024 is a technical article presented at IEEE Global
`
`Telecommunications Conference. Exhibit 1028 includes selected pages from the
`
`textbook titled Understanding Digital Subscriber Technology.
`
`TQ Delta argues that Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 should be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61 because Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 are irrelevant, serve to fill an alleged
`
`shortcoming in the evidentiary record and were not timely submitted by the
`
`Petitioner. Mot., pp. 9-12.
`
`First, TQ Delta does not explain how Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 fail to
`
`satisfy the test for relevancy under Fed. R. Evid. 401 or show how Exhibits 1023,
`
`1024, and 1028 are unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403. With no
`
`explanation provided, TQ Delta fails to carry its burden as the movant. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`Second, Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 are relevant to this proceeding
`
`because they support Petitioner’s contention that phase-scrambling was a well-
`
`known technique in the prior art for PAR reduction. As discussed above, whether
`
`phase scrambling was known to reduce PAR is an issue in this inter partes review.
`
`Exhibit 1023 explains how phase scrambling via a “fixed phasor-transformation”
`
`was a way to reduce PAR. Exhibit 1023, p. 1234. Exhibit 1024 explains that phase
`
`12
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`scrambling using “phase rotated signal parts” was another way to reduce PAR.
`
`Exhibit 1024, p. 1. Exhibit 1028 explains that phase scrambling using techniques
`
`described in Exhibit 1024 was a way to reduce PAR in DMT-based systems.
`
`Exhibit 1028, p. 238. Thus, Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 demonstrate the truth
`
`behind Petitioner’s assertion that phase scrambling to reduce PAR was a known
`
`technique before the ’158 Patent was filed. Petitioner’s Reply, pp. 12-13.
`
`Exhibit 1028 is also relevant to this proceeding for another reason. Exhibit
`
`1028 supports Petitioner’s assertion that market forces would have prompted a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Shively and Stopler. Petitioner’s
`
`Reply, p. 15; Ex. 1028, p. 17. Whether Shively and Stopler could be combined is
`
`an issue in this inter partes review. Thus, Exhibit 1028 refutes TQ Delta’s
`
`contention that there were no market forces to prompt the combination of Shively
`
`and Stopler. Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 55-57.
`
`Third, TQ Delta does not explain how Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 will be
`
`unfairly prejudicial or why their probative value is minimal under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403.
`
`Fourth, Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 were filed in response to TQ Delta’s
`
`contention that scrambling phases of signal carriers to reduce PAR was not known.
`
`See Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 34, 43, and 49. Exhibit 1028 was also filed in
`
`response to TQ Delta’s assertion that there were no market forces that would have
`
`13
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`prompted a POSITA to combine Shively and Stopler. See Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, pp. 55-57. Thus, submission of Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 was
`
`proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because the Petitioner can
`
`“respond to arguments raised in the … patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1028 are relevant and admissible
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61.
`
`2.
`
`Pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of Exhibit 2013 are Relevant
`
`Pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of Exhibit 2013 pertain to Dr.
`
`Tellado’s testimony regarding inclusion of Exhibits 1023 and 1024 in Dr.
`
`Tellado’s thesis (Exhibit 1025).
`
`TQ Delta alleges that pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of Exhibit 2013
`
`are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23,
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Petitioner failed to address Exhibits 1023 and 1024
`
`in the Petition, and in Dr. Tellado’s first and second declarations. Mot., pp. 11-12.
`
`TQ Delta also alleges that pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of Exhibit 2013
`
`are inadmissible because Exhibits 1023 and 1024 are irrelevant and were not
`
`timely filed. Mot., pp. 11-12.
`
`TQ Delta fails to analyze how pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of
`
`Exhibit 2013 fail the relevancy test under Fed. R. Evid. 401. TQ Delta also fails to
`
`14
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`explain how these pages are unfairly prejudicial to TQ Delta under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403. With no explanation provided, TQ Delta fails to carry its burden as the
`
`movant. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`As already discussed above, there is no authority that states that exhibits that
`
`are not cited in the Petition or expert declarations are irrelevant. Further, as already
`
`explained, Exhibits 1023 and 1024 are relevant and were properly filed under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 in response to the Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`Thus information included in Exhibits 1023 and 1024 is relevant and timely for the
`
`same reasons. Because Exhibits 1023 and 1024 are relevant, the discussion of
`
`those exhibits in Exhibit 2013 is also relevant.
`
`Further, pages 146:20-149:7 and 149:8-152:25 of Exhibit 2013 are relevant
`
`because they show that phase scrambling was a known way to reduce PAR before
`
`the ’158 Patent was filed. See Petitioner’s Reply, Paper 17, p. 12-13. As discussed
`
`above, phase scrambling is an issue in this inter partes review. These pages are
`
`proper redirect testimony that responds to TQ Delta’s questions regarding Dr.
`
`Tellado’s thesis and the research activity relating to “PAR reduction” in the 1990s.
`
`Ex. 2013, 10:23-11:16, 14:21-15:22, 17:3-18. Dr. Tellado explains, for example,
`
`that the Muller paper (Ex. 1024) describes “two algorithms that use phase rotations
`
`to reduce PAR.” Ex. 2013, 152:2-3. Dr. Tellado also explains how the Mestdagh
`
`paper (Ex. 1023) describes how “each QAM-modulated carrier within a DMT
`
`15
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`symbol has a phase transformation to reduce PAR.” Ex. 2013, 148:18-20. Dr.
`
`Tellado’s testimony demonstrates the truth of his declaration statement that using a
`
`phase-scrambler to reduce PAR was well-known in the prior art. Ex. 1026, ¶4. The
`
`evidence also supports Dr. Tellado’s opinion that a POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the purpose of Stopler’s phase scrambler was to reduce PAR. Ex.
`
`1009, ¶60.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 2013 is relevant and admissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`402, Fed. R. Evid. 403, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the above noted reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`IPR2016-01021
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service
`
`July 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com;
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com; smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com;
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com; akarp@mcandrews-ip.com;
`TQD- CISCO@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Documents served
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Exclude
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`Andrew B. Karp
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`17
`
`