Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`
`Patent Number: 8,155,298
`
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`1
`
`
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`
`Patent Number: 8,155,298
`
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner YMAX CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`hereby objects as follows to the admissibility of Patent Owner’s evidence:
`
`
`
`1. Ex. 2020 (La Porta Dep.):
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 801 and FRE 802 as
`
`hearsay having no applicable exception:
`
`i. FRE 32 states that "all or part of a deposition may be used
`
`against a party" only if all of (A)-(C) are satisfied. FRE 32(A)
`
`requires that "the party was present or represented at the taking
`
`of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it." This Exhibit is
`
`a deposition taken in a completely different IPR. Petitioner was
`
`not "present or represented at the taking of the deposition," nor
`
`did the Patent Owner provide Petitioner "reasonable notice of
`
`it."
`
`ii. FRE 804 states that former testimony may only be "offered
`
`against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose
`
`predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar
`
`motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination."
`
`Petitioner (and Petitioner's predecessor in interest) never had
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`"an opportunity and similar motive to develop [this former
`
`testimony] by direct, cross-, or redirect examination."
`
`b. Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is a deposition taken in a completely
`
`different IPR. Petitioner was never given the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine the Expert in this Exhibit.
`
`c. Petitioner further objects to this evidence as being an incomplete copy
`
`of the deposition. Under FRE 32(A)(6), Petitioner "require[s]" the
`
`Patent Owner to file a full and complete copy of the deposition.
`
`2. Ex. 2021 (Willis Dep.):
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 801 and FRE 802 as
`
`hearsay having no applicable exception:
`
`i. FRE 32 states that "all or part of a deposition may be used
`
`against a party" only if all of (A)-(C) are satisfied. FRE 32(A)
`
`requires that "the party was present or represented at the taking
`
`of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it." This Exhibit is
`
`a deposition taken in a completely different IPR. Petitioner was
`
`not "present or represented at the taking of the deposition," nor
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`did the Patent Owner provide Petitioner "reasonable notice of
`
`it."
`
`ii. FRE 804 states that former testimony may only be "offered
`
`against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose
`
`predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar
`
`motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination."
`
`Petitioner (and Petitioner's predecessor in interest) never had
`
`"an opportunity and similar motive to develop [this former
`
`testimony] by direct, cross-, or redirect examination."
`
`b. Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is a deposition taken in a completely
`
`different IPR. Petitioner was never given the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine the Expert in this Exhibit.
`
`c. Petitioner further objects to this evidence as being an incomplete copy
`
`of the deposition. Under FRE 32(A)(6), Petitioner "require[s]" the
`
`Patent Owner to file a full and complete copy of the deposition.
`
`3. Ex. 2023 (-01261 Pet.):
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 401 as irrelevant. This
`
`Exhibit is a Petition from a third party in another IPR. Thus, it is the
`
`legal argument and opinion of a party that is completely unrelated to
`
`the Petitioner. Petitioner was not involved in the drafting or filing of
`
`the Petition included in this Exhibit. As such, this Exhibit does not
`
`have any "tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
`
`be without the evidence."
`
`b. To the extent this Exhibit is determined to have some relevancy,
`
`Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is the argument and unsworn opinion of a
`
`party that is completely unrelated to the Petitioner. Petitioner was not
`
`involved in the drafting or filing of the Petition included in this
`
`Exhibit. As such, allowing it to be used against the Petitioner would
`
`result in unfair prejudice to the Petitioner, and this unfair prejudice
`
`would substantially outweigh any potential minor probative value the
`
`
`
`Exhibit may provide.
`
`4. Ex. 2024 (-01254 Pet.):
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 401 as irrelevant. This
`
`Exhibit is a Petition from a third party in another IPR. Thus, it is the
`
`legal argument and opinion of a party that is completely unrelated to
`
`the Petitioner. Petitioner was not involved in the drafting or filing of
`
`the Petition included in this Exhibit. As such, this Exhibit does not
`
`have any "tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
`
`be without the evidence."
`
`b. To the extent this Exhibit is determined to have some relevancy,
`
`Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is the argument and unsworn opinion of a
`
`party that is completely unrelated to the Petitioner. Petitioner was not
`
`involved in the drafting or filing of the Petition included in this
`
`Exhibit. As such, allowing it to be used against the Petitioner would
`
`result in unfair prejudice to the Petitioner, and this unfair prejudice
`
`would substantially outweigh any potential minor probative value the
`
`
`
`Exhibit may provide.
`
`5. Ex. 2025 (-01260 Pet.):
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`This Exhibit is an incomplete version of the Petitioner's Petition in a
`
`completely different IPR proceeding. The Patent Owner has cherry
`
`picked portions of the Petition that may benefit the Patent Owner,
`
`while leaving out portions of the Petition that may be unfavorable to
`
`the Patent Owner. The Patent Owner's failure to submit a full version
`
`of the Petition causes this Exhibit's "probative value [to be]
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`6. Ex. 2026 (La Porta Dec. of IPR2016-01262)
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 801 and FRE 802 as
`
`hearsay. This Exhibit is a third party's expert's declaration submitted
`
`by a third party in a different IPR. The expert is not involved in any
`
`way in this IPR. Also, Petitioner was never given the opportunity to
`
`cross-examine this expert.
`
`b. Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is an incomplete version of the Expert's
`
`declaration. The Patent Owner has cherry picked portions of the
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`declaration that may benefit the Patent Owner, while leaving out
`
`portions of the declaration that may be unfavorable to the Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner's failure to submit a full version of the
`
`Expert Declaration causes this Exhibit's "probative value [to be]
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`7. Ex. 2027 (Willis Dec. of IPR2016-01254):
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 801 and FRE 802 as
`
`hearsay. This Exhibit is a third party's expert's declaration submitted
`
`by a third party in a different IPR. The expert is not involved in any
`
`way in this IPR. Also, Petitioner was never given the opportunity to
`
`cross-examine this expert.
`
`b. Petitioner further objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is an incomplete version of the Expert's
`
`declaration. The Patent Owner has cherry picked portions of the
`
`declaration that may benefit the Patent Owner, while leaving out
`
`portions of the declaration that may be unfavorable to the Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner's failure to submit a full version of the
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration causes this Exhibit's "probative value [to be]
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`8. Ex. 2028 (Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01258):
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`This Exhibit is an incomplete version of the Expert's declaration. The
`
`Patent Owner has cherry picked portions of the declaration that may
`
`benefit the Patent Owner, while leaving out portions of the declaration
`
`that may be unfavorable to the Patent Owner. The Patent Owner's
`
`failure to submit a full version of the Expert Declaration causes this
`
`Exhibit's "probative value [to be] substantially outweighed by a
`
`danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`9. Ex. 2030 (Lavian Dec. of IPR2016-01256):
`
`a. Petitioner objects to this evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d), which
`
`states that "[a] document already in the record of the proceeding must
`
`not be filed again, not even as an exhibit or an appendix, without
`
`express Board authorization." This Exhibit is a copy of portions of
`
`Petitioner's Expert Declaration, which is already in the record (see Ex.
`
`1002), and Patent Owner never received express Board authorization
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`to re-file these portions of the Declaration. The filing of this Exhibit
`
`confuses the record, as Petitioner is unsure as to which document to
`
`cite to in future papers: Petitioner's Exhibit number or Patent Owner's
`
`Exhibit number.
`
`b. Petitioner also objects to this evidence under FRE 403, as "its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair
`
`prejudice." This Exhibit is an incomplete version of the Expert's
`
`declaration. The Patent Owner has cherry picked portions of the
`
`declaration that may benefit the Patent Owner, while leaving out
`
`portions of the declaration that may be unfavorable to the Patent
`
`Owner. The Patent Owner's failure to submit a full version of the
`
`Expert Declaration causes this Exhibit's "probative value [to be]
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of" "unfair prejudice."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark D. Passler
`Mark D. Passler
`Registration No. 40,764
`Counsel for Petitioner
`AKERMAN LLP
`777 South Flagler Drive
`Suite 1100 West Tower
`West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
`Tel: (561) 653-5000
`Fax: (561) 659-6313
`mark.passler@akerman.com
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`Dated: April 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`
`Case IPR2016-01256
`Patent 8,155,298
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 10, 2017, the foregoing
`
`Evidentiary Objections was served by electronic mail addressed to the Patent
`
`Owner's counsel of record in this IPR:
`
`(1) Brent N. Bumgardner (at brent@nelbum.com);
`
`(2) John Murphy (at murphy@nelbum.com);
`
`(3) Victor Siber (at VSiber@SiberLaw.com);
`
`(4) Hanna Madbak (at HMadbak@SiberLaw.com); and
`
`(5) PAL-IPR@nelbum.com.
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark D. Passler
`Mark D. Passler
`Registration No. 40,764
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`AKERMAN LLP
`777 South Flagler Drive
`Suite 1100 West Tower
`West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
`Tel: (561) 653-5000
`Fax: (561) 659-6313
`mark.passler@akerman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`{41400681;1}
`
`
`12
`
`
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
