`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`——————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`——————————
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Limited
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————————
`
`Case IPR2016-01264
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`——————————
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS 2045 AND 2046
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the following
`
`IPR2016-01264
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`Patent Owner exhibits filed on June 21, 2017:
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`Redacted version of Invalidity Expert Report of Chris
`Mack without attachments
`Declaration of Rumiko Whitehead
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2045 for lack of authentication under FRE 901,
`
`for being irrelevant under FRE 401-403, for failing to provide a complete copy
`
`under FRE 106, and as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 to the extent Patent
`
`Owner relies on this exhibit for the truth of the statements set forth therein.
`
`In Exhibit 2046, a paralegal of Patent Owner’s counsel stated “Exhibit 2045
`
`is a redacted copy of the Invalidity Expert Report of Chris Mack (without
`
`attachments), dated January 30, 2017, obtained from litigation counsel in Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited et al., USDC EDTEX 2:16-cv-00134-
`
`JRG-RSP. Litigation counsel specifically confirmed that this copy of the
`
`Invalidity Expert Report of Chris Mack was correct.” Ex. 2046 at ¶ 4. The
`
`paralegal did not further identify any particular “litigation counsel,” nor did she
`
`explain how or why the heavily-redacted Exhibit 2045 was confirmed to be
`
`“correct.” Petitioner objects to Paragraph 4 in the paralegal’s declaration
`
`(Ex. 2046) as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802. Patent Owner has provided
`
`no other evidence to support whether Ex. 2045 is an authentic copy. FRE 901.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2045 is also irrelevant because whether an expert in the related
`
`IPR2016-01264
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`litigation provided an invalidity opinion does not alter Patent Owner’s duty of
`
`candor to disclose the known, material prior-art references that it omitted from its
`
`Motion to Amend. Patent Owner offers Exhibit 2045 to prove the “immateriality of
`
`Exhibits 1025-1031,” but without access to the redacted portions of this exhibit, it
`
`is impossible to ascertain whether the redacted information addressed, referred, or
`
`otherwise related to any of Exhibits 1025-1031. Because redacted Exhibit 2045
`
`fails to provide sufficient information to support whether the expert in the district
`
`court considered any of Exhibits 1025-1031 in his invalidity opinions, Petitioner
`
`objects to this exhibit as irrelevant and incomplete. FRE 401-403, 106.
`
`Petitioner further objects to this exhibit as irrelevant because the redacted
`
`expert report was prepared in a district court litigation that applied a different claim
`
`construction standard than the current proceeding. FRE 401-403. Petitioner also
`
`objects to this exhibit as unfairly prejudicial because Patent Owner relies on expert
`
`testimony that has been redacted from the exhibit. FRE 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 28, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Stephen E. Kabakoff/
`Stephen E. Kabakoff
`Reg. No. 51,276
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01264
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) that, on this 28 day of June 2017,
`
`
`
`I caused counsel of record for the Patent Owner (as listed below) to be
`
`electronically served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS 2045 AND 2046:
`
`Michael J. Fink (Reg. No. 31,827)
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Neil F. Greenblum (Reg. No. 28,394)
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`
`Arnold Turk (Reg. No. 33,094)
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
