UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
