`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01289
`U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.’S
`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 Response to Petition for Inter Partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,060,360 (IPR2016-01289).
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`UTC-2013
`
`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 5-48 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 5-48 of the exhibit include
`
`opinions that are not admissible under FRE 701, 702,
`
`and/or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`FRE 705 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The exhibit includes expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or
`
`data.
`
`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.
`
`UTC-2014
`
`Petitioner maintains its objections made during the
`
`
`
`deposition of Dr. Andreas M. Glaeser.
`
`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.
`
`UTC-2016
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit violates the rule of completeness.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`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 801/802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`UTC-2017
`
`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 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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`UTC-2018
`
`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 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.
`
`UTC-2019
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`UTC-2020
`
`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 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.
`
`UTC-2021
`
`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 ground
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`UTC-2023
`
`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 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`UTC-2024
`
`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 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`UTC-2025
`
`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 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.
`
`UTC-2026
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.63(b): Patent Owner has not provided a
`
`translation of those portions of the document not in
`
`English.
`
`UTC-2027
`
`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 ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`
`UTC-2028
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2029
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2030
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2031
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2032
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2033
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2034
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`UTC-2035
`
`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 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Patent Owner claims it is.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2): The exhibit is not timely
`
`supplemental evidence.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai/
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Megan H. Wantland (Reg. No. 64,423)
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`GE.WGM.Service@weil.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dated: April 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 3, 2017, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW was served via
`
`electronic mail, upon the following:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Lauren A. Degnan
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`AXF-PTAB@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`Riffe@fr.com
`Degnan@fr.com
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ c
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7075
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`