`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`______________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.
`
`objects to the evidence submitted by Petitioner R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`with the Petition (Paper 2) filed July 2, 2016.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 (Chinese Patent No. 2719043Y to Lik
`
`Hon) as originally filed for failing to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(b) because that exhibit was not filed with an affidavit as defined by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.2, as discussed below with respect to Exhibit 1003.
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1003 (Certified English translation of
`
`Chinese Pat. No. 2719043Y to Lik Hon) as originally filed for failing to provide a
`
`translation in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Specifically, Exhibit 1003
`
`was not filed with an affidavit, as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, attesting to the
`
`accuracy of the translation.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1005 (Application Data Sheet of April 5,
`
`2011 Filed in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/079,937) as an incomplete copy, and thus an
`
`inadmissible duplicate pursuant to FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1005 as creating unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or as a waste of time pursuant to FRE 403. The Board did not
`
`rely on Exhibit 1005 in its decision to institute trial, thus the Exhibit does not
`
`include any fact of consequence, nor does it have any tendency to make a fact
`
`more or less probable than it would be without its admission.
`
`If the Board admits Exhibit 1005, Patent Owner objects that it is only part of
`
`a writing under FRE 106.
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1006 (Preliminary Amendment of April 5,
`
`2011 Filed in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/079,937) as an incomplete copy, and thus an
`
`inadmissible duplicate pursuant to FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1005 as creating unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or as a waste of time pursuant to FRE 403. The Board did not
`
`rely on Exhibit 1006 in its decision to institute trial, thus the Exhibit does not
`
`include any fact of consequence, nor does it have any tendency to make a fact
`
`more or less probable than it would be without its admission.
`
`If the Board admits Exhibit 1006, Patent Owner objects that it is only part of
`
`a writing under FRE 106.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1007 (Non-Final Office Action of July 19,
`
`2012 in U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/079,937) as an incomplete copy, and thus an
`
`inadmissible duplicate pursuant to FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1007 as creating unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or as a waste of time pursuant to FRE 403. The Board did not
`
`rely on Exhibit 1007 in its decision to institute trial, thus the Exhibit does not
`
`include any fact of consequence, nor does it have any tendency to make a fact
`
`more or less probable than it would be without its admission.
`
`If the Board admits Exhibit 1007, Patent Owner objects that it is only part of
`
`a writing under FRE 106.
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1008 (Amendment of August 3, 2012 in
`
`U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 13/079,937) as an incomplete copy, and thus an inadmissible
`
`duplicate pursuant to FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1008 as creating unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or as a waste of time pursuant to FRE 403. The Board did not
`
`rely on Exhibit 1008 in its decision to institute trial, thus the Exhibit does not
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`include any fact of consequence, nor does it have any tendency to make a fact
`
`more or less probable than it would be without its admission.
`
`If the Board admits Exhibit 1008, Patent Owner objects that it is only part of
`
`a writing under FRE 106.
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009 (PCT Pub. No. WO2007131449) for
`
`failing to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) because that exhibit was
`
`not filed with an affidavit as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, as discussed below with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1010.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010 (English translation of PCT Pub. No.
`
`WO2007131449) for failing to provide a translation in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(b). Specifically, Exhibit 1010 was not filed with an affidavit, as defined
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, attesting to the accuracy of the translation.
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1015 (Declaration of Robert H. Sturges) as
`
`lacking sound evidentiary basis, biased, vague, misleading, confusing the issues,
`
`and more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403. For example, paragraphs 44-
`
`50 of Exhibit 1015 offer opinions regarding “friction fit,” “bonding material,”
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`“shear forces,” “axial displacement,” and air flow that are not based on sufficient
`
`facts or data and are not the product of reliable principles and methods. As an
`
`additional example, pages 32-33 of Exhibit 1015 include opinions in the form of
`
`annotations that are not based on sufficient facts or data and are not the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods. If Sturges is presented as a lay witness, Patent
`
`Owner objects under FRE 701 that the testimony is based on alleged scientific
`
`and/or technical knowledge. If Sturges is presented as an expert witness, Patent
`
`Owner objects under FRE 702 that the testimony is not based upon sufficient facts
`
`or data and is not the result of application of reliable principles and methods.
`
`Patent Owner further objects under FRE 703 that the facts or data are not of a type
`
`reasonably relied upon by experts.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to portions of Exhibit 1015 because those
`
`portions lack relevance. Specifically:
`
`Paragraphs 34-36 of Exhibit 1015 relate
`
`to Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of the terms “frame,” “porous component,” and “porous component
`
`substantially surrounded by the liquid storage component.” The Board does not
`
`rely on paragraphs 34-36 or any other part of Exhibit 1015 in deciding that no
`
`terms require explicit construction. See PTAB Decision at 8. Thus, the Exhibit
`
`does not include any fact of consequence, nor does it have any tendency to make a
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`fact more or less probable than it would be without its admission. As such,
`
`paragraphs 34-36 of Exhibit 1015 are inadmissible under FRE 401, 402 or 403 as
`
`irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, confusing or a waste of time to any
`
`issue at trial and should therefore be excluded.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to the Sturges Declaration to the extent that any
`
`paragraph relies upon an exhibit that is objected to herein for the reasons set forth
`
`in those objections. Any paragraph in the Sturges Declaration that relies upon any
`
`exhibit not relied upon by the PTAB to institute this proceeding is further objected
`
`to as not being relevant and therefore being inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Exhibit 1016
`
`Patent Owner Objects to Exhibit 1016 (Rohsenow, “Heat, Mass, And
`
`Momentum Transfer”) because that exhibit is not authenticated under FRE 901,
`
`902, or 903.
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1017 (WO 2005/099494 (“Hon ’494”)) for
`
`failing to meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) because that exhibit was
`
`not filed with an affidavit as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, as discussed below with
`
`respect to Exhibit 1018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1018 (Certified English translation of WO
`
`2005/099494 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.63(b)) for failing to provide a translation in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Specifically, Exhibit 1018 was not filed
`
`with an affidavit, as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, attesting to the accuracy of the
`
`translation.
`
`Date: January 18, 2017
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael J. Wise /
`Michael J. Wise, Reg. No. 34,047
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Phone: 310-788-3210
`Facsimile: 310-788-3399
`MWise@PerkinsCoie.com
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that service on Petitioner was made as
`
`follows, in accordance with 37 CFR 42.6(e):
`
`Date of service:
`Manner of service:
`
`Persons served:
`
`January 18, 2017
`1. Electronic submission through the USPTO Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board End-to-End System
`2. Electronic mail
`Document(s) served: PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(b)(1)
`Ralph J. Gabric, Lead Counsel
`Robert Mallin, Backup Counsel
`Yuezhong Feng, Backup Counsel
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`rmallin@brinksgilson.com
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Amy Candeloro/
`Amy Candeloro
`Paralegal
`Perkins Coie LLP