`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 IPR2016-01379
`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 IPR2016-01379
`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 IPR2016-01379
`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 IPR2016-01379
`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 IPR2016-01379
`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 82), 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
`
`