`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01155
`U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) files and serves the
`
`following objections to evidence that Patent Owner Windy City Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) served on March 31, 2017. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`Exhibit 2005 is objected to for containing hearsay, lacking authentication,
`
`lacking completeness, and lacking relevance. For example, to the extent that
`
`Patent Owner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of descriptions and other
`
`information described therein, this information is hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-
`
`02. Patent Owner also offers no evidence that this exhibit is what Patent Owner
`
`claims it to be. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. The exhibit is also incomplete—the relied
`
`on entry for “Networks – Wide Area (WANs)” states that “[t]wo examples of
`
`WANs are shown on the next two pages,” yet those two pages were not filed. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106. The exhibit also lacks relevance to the issues in this
`
`proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03.
`
`Exhibit 2010 is objected to for lacking relevance to the issues in this
`
`proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03.
`
`Exhibits 2011 and 2012 are objected to for containing hearsay, lacking
`
`authentication, and lacking relevance. For example, to the extent Patent Owner
`
`relies on these exhibits to prove the truth of descriptions and other information
`
`described therein, this information is hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801-02. Patent
`
`Owner also offers no evidence that that these exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`claims them to be. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. These exhibit also lack relevance to the
`
`issues in this proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03.
`
`Exhibit 2013 is objected to for lacking relevance to the issues in this
`
`proceeding. For example, it is not cited in any paper, declaration, or transcript.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01155
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 7th day of April,
`
`2017, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing and any
`
`accompanying exhibits by e-mail on the following counsel:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Dated: April 7, 2017
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
