`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01289
`Patent Number: 7,060,360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
`CORPORATION’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.64(b), Petitioner General Electric Company,
`
`hereby objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence with Patent Owner
`
`United Technologies Corporation’s Preliminary Response to Petition for Inter
`
`Partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360 (IPR2016-01289).
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 34-61, 70-75, 78-79, 82-84,
`
`and 87-117 of the exhibit include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient
`
`to show that the witness has personal knowledge of
`
`the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 34-61, 70-75, 78-
`
`79, 82-84, and 87-117 include opinions that are not
`
`1
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit UTC-2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`admissible under FRE 701, 702, and/or 703, or
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579 (1993).
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit includes inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter
`
`allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 1006: The exhibit provides an improper
`
`summary of the evidence.
`
`FRE 705 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The exhibit includes
`
`expert testimony that does not disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2002
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit violates the rule of
`
`completeness.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2003
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: The exhibit includes improper hearsay
`
`within hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2004
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit violates the rule of
`
`completeness.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2005
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit UTC-2006
`
`
`
`Objections
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2008
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2009
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`evidence.
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2010
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2011
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Exhibit UTC-2012
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not
`
`provided sufficient explanation of what the exhibit
`
`is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 401-402: The exhibit is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai/ l
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Megan H. Wantland (Reg. No. 64,423)
`Backup Counsel
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 682-7000
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Date: January 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 11, 2017, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SERVED WITH PATENT
`
`OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE was served via electronic mail, upon
`
`the following:
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`AXF-PTAB@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`Riffe@fr.com
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ a
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`