`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`FONTEM HOLDINGS 1 B.V.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01268
`Patent No. 8,365,742
`
`___________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Reynolds” or “Petitioner”) objects to the evidence submitted by Patent Owner
`
`Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. with the Patent Owner Opposition To Petition For Inter
`
`Partes Review (Paper 24) filed on April 4, 2017.
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2015 (Declaration of Richard Meyst) as lacking
`
`sound evidentiary basis, biased, vague, misleading, confusing the issues, and more
`
`prejudicial than probative under FRE 403. For example, paragraphs 25-30, 37-88,
`
`and 98-105 offer opinions regarding construction of the term “supported by” and
`
`regarding “atomize,” “friction fit,” “bonding material,” “airflow,” “frame,”
`
`“support,” “axial displacement,” “shear forces,” “deformation,” “radial support,”
`
`and “improvement in overall thermal efficiency” that are not based on sufficient
`
`facts or data and are not the product of reliable principles and methods. If Meyst is
`
`presented as a lay witness, Petitioner objects under FRE 701 that the testimony is
`
`based on alleged scientific and/or technical knowledge. If Meyst is presented as an
`
`expert witness, Petitioner 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. Petitioner further objects under FRE 703 that the facts or
`
`data are not of a type reasonably relied upon by experts. Petitioner further objects
`
`to the Meyst 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 Meyst Declaration that relies upon any exhibit not relied upon by
`
`the PTAB in this proceeding is further objected to as not being relevant and
`
`therefore being inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2018 as hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Petitioner
`
`objects to Ex. 2018 under FRE 401, 402 or 403 as irrelevant, confusing or a waste
`
`of time to any issue at trial.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2019 because it is not authenticated under FRE 901,
`
`902, or 903. Petitioner objects to Ex. 2019 as hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Ex. 2019 under FRE 401, 402 or 403 as irrelevant,
`
`confusing or a waste of time to any issue at trial.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2024 because it is not authenticated under FRE 901,
`
`902, or 903. Petitioner objects to Ex. 2024 as hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Ex. 2024 under FRE 401, 402 or 403 as irrelevant,
`
`confusing or a waste of time to any issue at trial. Petitioner objects to Ex. 2024
`
`under FRE 106 as being part of a writing, not including any other part that in
`
`fairness ought to be considered at the same time.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2025 as hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Petitioner
`
`objects to Ex. 2025 under FRE 401, 402 or 403 as irrelevant, confusing or a waste
`
`of time to any issue at trial. Petitioner objects to Ex. 2025 under FRE 106 as being
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`part of a writing, not including any other part that in fairness ought to be
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Robert Mallin
`/s/
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Robert Mallin (Reg. No. 35,596)
`Yuezhong Feng (Reg. No. 58,657)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`considered at the same time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on April 11, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Objections To Patent Owner’s Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served
`
`by Electronic submission through the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-
`
`to-End System and by e-mail to
`
`
`Michael J. Wise, Lead Counsel (MWise@perkinscoie.com)
`Joseph P. Hamilton, Back-up Counsel
`(JHamilton@perkinscoie.com)
`Jenna M. DeRosier (JDeRosier@perkinscoie.com)
`Tyler R. Bowen, Back-up Counsel
`(TBowen@perkinscoie.com)
`Amy Candeloro (ACandeloro@perkinscoie.com)
`patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert Mallin
`/s/
`
`
`Robert Mallin (Reg. No. 35,596)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`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
