Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent 6,197,696
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits as
`
`indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent 6,197,696
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S FIRST SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S
`EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits as
`
`indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the evidence submitted
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`by Petitioner in its Petition.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Petitioner, in the context of the Petition and not in the context
`
`of any other substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner expressly objects to any other purported use of these
`
`Exhibits, including as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be
`
`improper under the applicable rules, and Patent Owner expressly asserts, reserves
`
`and does not waive any other objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibit 1002 and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1002 to the Petition, titled “Expert Declaration
`
`of Dr. Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D.”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401-402 (Relevance); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons);
`
`F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 703 (“Bases of an Expert’s
`
`Opinion Testimony); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 under F.R.E. 702 and 703, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61. The declarant of Exhibit 1002, Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., fails to
`
`provide sufficient underlying facts or data upon which the statements contained
`
`therein could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702. Dr. Smith has also
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`not “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” and his
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`opinions in Exhibit 1002 are not “the product of reliable principles and methods,”
`
`in violation of F.R.E. 702. Furthermore, there is no indication that Dr. Smith based
`
`his opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely in violation of F.R.E. 703.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1002 under F.R.E. 401 and 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing of
`
`issues, wasting time).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibits 1008 and 1009, and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 1008 and 1009 of the Petition, titled, “C.
`
`
`
`Akrout et al., “A 480-MHz Microprocessor in a 0.12μm Leff CMOS Technology
`
`with Copper Interconnects,” IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, Vol. 33, no. 11
`
`(November 1998)” and “J.N. Burghartz et al., “Monolithic Spiral Inductors
`
`Fabricated Using a VLSI Cu-Damascene Interconnect Technology and Low-Loss
`
`Substrates,” International Electron Devices Meeting (December 1996),”
`
`respectively.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any evidence of authenticity of Exhibits 1008 and
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`1009, or any evidence of the date on which any of these exhibits were published or
`
`made available, in violation of, inter alia, F.R.E. 901.
`
`Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Smith rely on Exhibits 1008 and 1009
`
`for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted without demonstrating
`
`that any hearsay exception applies, this violates Rules 801 and 802. See, e.g.,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Andrew N. Thomases/
`Andrew N. Thomases
`Reg. No. 40,841
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`P: 650-617-4712
`F: 650-566-4275
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`Mailing Address for all PTAB
`Correspondence:
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`IPRM Docketing – Floor 43
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, MA 02199-3600
`
`Attorneys/Agents For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petition at 3.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2016-01378
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER’S FIRST
`
`SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS has been served in its
`
`entirety by causing the aforementioned document to be electronically mailed,
`
`pursuant to Petitioner’s agreement (Paper 2 at 69), to the following attorneys of
`
`record for the Petitioner listed below:
`
`
`Petitioner’s
`Counsel of
`Record:
`
`
`
`
`Darren M. Jiron (Reg. No. 45,777)
`darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square,
`11955 Freedom Drive, Reston, VA 20190-5675
`
`E. Robert Yoches (Reg. No. 30,120)
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`J.P. Long (Reg. No. 65,125)
`jp.long@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`TSMC-IPB-PTAB@finnegan.com
`
`Dated:
`
`February 1, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Bridget McAuliffe/
`Name: Bridget McAuliffe
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`5
`
`
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
