`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent Number: 8,457,113
`________________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FOCAL IP, LLC’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Patent Owner Focal IP, LLC hereby moves
`
`to exclude Exhibits 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, and 1058.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review on June 23, 2016 (Paper No.
`
`2). Patent Owner filed a preliminary response on October 12, 2016 (Paper No. 8),
`
`and the Board instituted trial on December 28, 2016 (Paper No. 15). Patent Owner
`
`filed a request for rehearing on January 11, 2017 (Paper No. 17), which the Board
`
`denied on January 31, 2017 (Paper No. 18). Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner
`
`Response on April 3, 2017 (Paper No. 25) accompanied by the Declaration of Regis
`
`J. “Bud” Bates (Exhibit 2022). Petitioner filed a reply on June 26, 2017 (Paper No.
`
`28). Patent Owner filed objections to evidence submitted, relied on, or cited by
`
`Petitioner in connection with its reply on June 30, 2017 (Paper No. 30). After
`
`receiving permission from the Board, Petitioner filed a revised reply on July 11,
`
`2017 (Paper No. 34), including a new exhibit (Exhibit 1058). Petitioner did not
`
`submit an expert declaration in connection with its reply. As authorized by the
`
`Board, Patent Owner filed a supplemental objection related to the exhibit submitted
`
`in connection with Petitioner’s revised reply (Paper No. 36).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`Motions to exclude are authorized by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). “The motion must
`
`identify the objections in the record in order and must explain the objections.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c). “A motion to exclude evidence must: (a) Identify where in the
`
`record the objection originally was made; (b) Identify where in the record the
`
`evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by an opponent; (c) Address
`
`objections to exhibits in numerical order; and (d) Explain each objection.” 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence apply in inter partes review proceedings. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a). Evidence is only admissible if it is relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
`
`determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Even if relevant, evidence may be
`
`excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or
`
`more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. In addition, hearsay is not admissible unless otherwise provided by
`
`statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or another applicable rule. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`A. Exhibit 1046 Should Be Excluded.
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`Exhibit 1046 is a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,169 to Lewis (“Lewis).
`
`Petitioner relies on Lewis as a new prior art reference to support its new and
`
`untimely arguments that it was allegedly well-understood to a POSA to interconnect
`
`an IP network to the PSTN through a tandem switch. Paper No. 34 at 8-9. Patent
`
`Owner objected to Exhibit 1046 in Paper No. 30.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1046 as irrelevant under Rule 402.
`
`The Board did not institute trial with respect to Lewis (see Paper No. 15 at 29), nor
`
`did the petition ever argue that it was well-understood to a POSA to interconnect an
`
`IP network to the PSTN through a tandem switch. Petitioner improperly attempts
`
`to use Lewis to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art Petitioner relies on in its
`
`petition. The trial is limited to the arguments, evidence, and grounds raised in the
`
`petition and instituted by the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring the
`
`petitioner to identify in the petition the evidence relied on to support the challenge);
`
`id. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board may authorize the
`
`review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Because Petitioner failed to
`
`timely bring this argument or this evidence in its petition, Lewis is irrelevant under
`
`Rule 402.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`Further, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one
`
`or more of the following: unfair prejudice, misleading the factfinders, and confusing
`
`the issues. Lewis and the untimely argument it allegedly supports were not properly
`
`raised in the petition. This evidence should therefore be excluded under Rule 403
`
`to prevent unfair prejudice, misleading of the factfinders, and confusing of the
`
`issues.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1047 Should Be Excluded.
`
`Exhibit 1047 is a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,333,931 to LaPier (“LaPier”).
`
`Petitioner relies on LaPier as a new prior art reference to support its new and
`
`untimely arguments that it was well-understood to a POSA to interconnect an IP
`
`network to the PSTN through a tandem switch. Paper No. 34 at 9-10. Patent Owner
`
`objected to Exhibit 1046 in Paper No. 30.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1047 as irrelevant under Rule 402.
`
`The Board did not institute trial with respect to LaPier (see Paper No. 15 at 29), nor
`
`did the petition ever argue that it was well-understood to a POSA to interconnect an
`
`IP network to the PSTN through a tandem switch. Petitioner improperly attempts
`
`to use LaPier to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art Petitioner relies on in its
`
`petition. The trial is limited to the arguments, evidence, and grounds raised in the
`
`petition and/or instituted by the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring the
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`petitioner to identify in the petition the evidence relied on to support the challenge);
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`
`
`id. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board may authorize the
`
`review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). Because Petitioner failed to
`
`timely bring this argument or evidence in its petition, LaPier is irrelevant under Rule
`
`402.
`
`Further, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one
`
`or more of the following: unfair prejudice, misleading the factfinders, and confusing
`
`the issues. LaPier and the untimely argument it allegedly supports were not properly
`
`raised in the petition. This evidence should therefore be excluded under Rule 403
`
`to prevent unfair prejudice, misleading of the factfinders, and confusing of the
`
`issues.
`
`C. Exhibits 1048 and 1049 Should Be Excluded.
`
`Exhibits 1048 and 1049 are the transcript of the deposition of Patent Owner’s
`
`expert, Regis J. “Bud” Bates, Jr., in IPR2016-01259, IPR2016-01261, IPR2016-
`
`01262, and IPR2016-01263, which are different proceedings from this one.1
`
`Petitioner relies on Exhibits 1048 and 1049 at various places in its reply, including
`
`
`1 Mr. Bates’s deposition occurred over two days. The transcript therefore
`
`contains two volumes, which were filed as separate exhibits.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`on pages 4-7, 10-11, 15, 17-18, and 26-27 (Paper No. 34). Patent Owner objected
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`
`
`to Exhibits 1048 and 1049 in Paper No. 30.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1048 and 1049 as hearsay under
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 802. The deposition was taken in connection
`
`with other proceedings involving different petitioners and different petitions, and
`
`Petitioner attempts to introduce Mr. Bates’s statements for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted in the statements—that Mr. Bates undertook certain work and has certain
`
`opinions related to those proceedings. The transcript is therefore hearsay. See Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Moreover, the transcript does not qualify for the former testimony exception.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). To qualify for that exception, the witness must be
`
`unavailable. To the contrary, Mr. Bates travelled to Fort Worth, Texas to be
`
`available for his deposition in this proceeding scheduled for May 11, 2017, but
`
`Petitioner Cisco chose to cancel this deposition. See Paper No. 27 (Cisco’s
`
`Deposition Notice of Mr. Bates).
`
`D. Exhibit 1058 Should Be Excluded.
`
`Exhibit 1058 comprises excerpts of the deposition transcript of Dr. Thomas
`
`F. La Porta in IPR2016-01259, IPR2016-01261, IPR2016-01262, and IPR2016-
`
`01263, which are different proceedings from this one. Petitioner relies on Exhibit
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`1058 at various places in its reply, including on pages 5, 6, 7, and 11 (Paper No. 34).
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objected to Exhibit 1058 in Paper No. 36.
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibit 1058 as hearsay under Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence 801 and 802. The deposition was taken in connection with other
`
`proceedings, not this one, and Petitioner attempts to bolster attorney arguments by
`
`using Dr. La Porta’s statements for the truth of the matter asserted in the
`
`statements—that Dr. La Porta has certain opinions related to those proceedings. The
`
`transcript is therefore hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 802(c).
`
`Finally, even if not hearsay, Exhibit 1058 should be excluded as irrelevant
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. It appears that, instead of crafting a reply
`
`tailored to its own proceeding, Cisco merely copied the replies filed by the Bright
`
`House Networks petitioner groups in IPR2016-01259, IPR2016-01261, IPR2016-
`
`01262, and IPR2016-01263, which included numerous arguments and citations to
`
`papers related to those proceedings. This resulted in several errors that Cisco has
`
`only partially cured in its revised filing of its reply. For example, Cisco’s revised
`
`reply now includes a number of citations to Exhibit 1058 that do not actually appear
`
`in that Exhibit. Paper No. 35 at 5, 6, 7. For at least these reasons, Exhibit 1058 is
`
`irrelevant under Rule 402. For analogous reasons, Exhibit 1058 should be excluded
`
`under Rule 403 because any probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, misleading of the factfinder, or confusing the issues.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 41
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 21st day of August 2017, a copy of Patent Owner
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 has been
`
`served in its entirety via email on the following:
`
`
`Wayne Stacy
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 953-6678
`Facsimile: (214) 661-4678
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`
`Sarah J. Guske
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California Street, #3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 291-6205
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6305
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Brent N. Bumgardner
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`
`Registration No. 48,476
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3490
`Email: brent@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`