`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01389
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`Petitioners’ Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, 2-3 (Oct. 15,
`2014) ...................................................................................................3, 15
`
`Rules
`Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, 14 (Aug. 14, 2012) ...........................................3, 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) .............................................................................................1
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Petitioners hereby submit their Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observations (Paper 47) (“Motion”) regarding the cross-examination of
`
`Mr. Ian Crayford on July 21, 20171. Petitioners respond and object to each of Patent
`
`Owner’s observations (“Obs.”) as follows:
`
`Response to Obs. No. 1: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading and
`
`irrelevant. The entirety of the excerpt quotes a portion of the examining attorney’s
`
`(Mr. Lewry) question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony, and it notably excludes Mr.
`
`Lewry’s preceding statement “I'm not talking about isoEthernet now.” Ex. 20552,
`
`25:9-13. Mr. Crayford’s uncited response to this question (Id., 25:14-22) and related
`
`uncited testimony3 is consistent with his opinions that various examples in Hunter
`
`1 Chrimar’s Motion could be expunged because it references a deposition transcript
`
`(Ex. 2055) that was not in the record in contravention of 37 CFR 42.6(c). Chrimar
`
`did not try to rectify this deficiency until August 8, 2017, after which the parties
`
`reached an agreement on August 11 (Paper 51) and the transcript was admitted on
`
`August 14, 2017.
`
`2 Cites to Ex. 2055 in this paper include the errata sheet (Ex. 1049) filed herewith.
`
`3 See id. at 16:20-18:23 (“[W]hen we're talking about IsoEthernet, we're talking
`
`about 10Base-T and ISDN next to each other, over the same wire and with different
`
`modes of operation supported, which allows either stand-alone Ethernet connection,
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`teach Ethernet terminal equipment (e.g. 10Base-T equipment and systems) and
`
`a stand-alone ISDN connection, and then layers of both of those . . . to co-exist . . .
`
`So [IsoEthernet] has . . . more and more bandwidth, different services for the
`
`isochronous so you can support video conferencing.”); 24:2-25:7 (“[Hunter] says
`
`‘The draft standard 802.9a provides for the integration of . . . video, voice, and data
`
`services to a desktop computer system.’ . . . [S]ome of the data services he’s referring
`
`to are very specifically Ethernet data services . . . he’s trying to implement a system
`
`that includes . . . a 10Base-T element and an ISDN or isochronous element”); 33:17-
`
`34:11; 34:23-35:6; 41:7-43:20 (“AU we know is terminology for access unit in
`
`802.9. ISTE we know is terminology used for terminal equipment in 802.9”), 23:10-
`
`24, 25:3-7, 44:3-9, 50:13-18, 56:1-4, 57:6-18, 60:19-23, 61:9-62:3, 110:25-112:19,
`
`115:20-117:23, 118:22-120:12, 125:12-126:20, 128:5-129:9, 129:18-130:17,
`
`132:10-134:8, 134:3-8, 135:4-9, 135:19-23, 138:8-10, 138:16-18, 139:8-23, 146:14-
`
`148:4, 149:22-151:2, 178:11-181:10, 182:11-183:11 (“[Hunter 32:16-33:2] says . . .
`
`‘multimedia hub 120 contains the following functions: 10Base-T hub repeater’ . . .
`
`[A] POSITA would [not] have any issue understanding that . . . would be an Ethernet
`
`repeater. These are isoEthernet interfaces . . . [A] POSITA would [not] have any
`
`problem understanding that isoEthernet includes an Ethernet function. So the
`
`isoEthernet interface includes Ethernet.”)
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Ethernet communications (e.g. 10Base-T, 100Base-T, and isoEthernet, which
`
`includes Ethernet and ISDN). Pet., 8-9, Reply, 14-22; Ex. 1046, ¶¶65-81; see infra
`
`Obj. Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 2: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes testimony at Ex.
`
`2055, 27:19-28:10), misleading (ignores related testimony at id., 152:23-153:22)
`
`and irrelevant. None of the challenged claims require powering a PC over Ethernet
`
`cables. Reply, 1, 7-8; Pet. 3-5; Ex. 2055, 40:14-25. Mr. Crayford’s testimony is
`
`consistent with Petitioners’ arguments that the Hunter-Bulan combination teaches
`
`every limitation of such claims. Pet, 8-15, 22-37; Reply, 14-28. He also testified
`
`that Hunter teaches “provid[ing] enough power to maintain [] the phone network.”
`
`Ex. 2055, 28:9-10, see also id. 26:19-27:7, 33:17-20; 158:15-18.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 3: This excerpt is misleading because, as Mr. Crayford
`
`explained in his rebuttal declaration (Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-68) and uncited testimony (e.g.
`
`Ex. 2055, 32:15-34:11, 43:15-44:10), based on a proper analysis of the disclosure of
`
`the reference as a whole, Hunter teaches Ethernet in several different ways including
`
`“both an isoEthernet/802.9 network and also with parts of the network operating as
`
`10Base-T LAN elements in that network.” Ex. 2055, 33:13-34:11; see also id., 18:9-
`
`12 (Hunter specifically references the “802.9 standard.”); supra No. 1.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 4: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it does
`
`not quote Mr. Crayford but rather quotes Mr. Lewry reading portions of a document
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`(Ex. 2050 to Mr. Crayford’s deposition) that the Board denied Chrimar permission
`
`to file in this proceeding. Paper 42, 3. Petitioners have also moved to exclude Ex.
`
`2050 and any related testimony, including that which Chrimar includes in Obs. No.
`
`4. Paper 45. Chrimar’s citation to its attorney’s questions constitutes an improper
`
`introduction of new evidence and argument in its Motion, and an attempt to bypass
`
`the Court’s order rejecting its request to file a Sur-Reply. Id.; Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No.
`
`157, 14 (Aug. 14, 2012); Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper
`
`37, 2-3 (Oct. 15, 2014); Ex. 2055, 37:12-21, 38:11-19. Accordingly, Obs. No. 4
`
`should be expunged. The excerpt is also irrelevant to any of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims (supra Nos. 2, 3) and to the state of the art at the time of the
`
`invention (April 10, 1998) as the underlying unauthorized evidence is from 1999.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 5: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony in which he identified two different examples of references in
`
`the record (Ex. 1010, 165; Ex. 1032, 19, 377) that further support his opinion that a
`
`POSITA reading Hunter would understand “AU interface” is an “access unit
`
`interface” and would not make the mistake that such disclosure refers to an
`
`“attachment unit interface.” Ex. 2055, 47:13-51:21, 33:17-34:11, 41:7-43:20, 45:11-
`
`16, 51:10-21, 53:8-54:25, 55:23-56:4; Ex. 1046, ¶81. Chrimar’s mischaracterization
`
`is also inconsistent with its own expert’s testimony that Hunter’s abbreviation “AU”
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`referred to “access unit” in the 802.9 standard. Reply, 22 citing Ex. 1020, 123:4-13.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 6: This excerpt is irrelevant as the 802.9 specification (Ex.
`
`1032) was properly included in Petitioners’ Reply to rebut Chrimar and its expert’s
`
`unsupported statements in its Response. Ex. 2055, 21:7-22:4; Resp. 35
`
`(“isoEthernet® interfaces were part of an IEEE standard called 802.9a. isoEthernet
`
`used ISDN signals, not Ethernet signals, to transmit data . . . isoEthernet
`
`connections [] carried ISDN (not Ethernet) traffic.”) (emphasis in original); Ex.
`
`2038, ¶¶76-77; Paper 55, 11-12.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 7: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question in part and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes
`
`Mr. Crayford’s preceding testimony (“there's no evidence that pre-existing wiring or
`
`cables required BSTs and CMCs in April, 1998, which is the . . . claimed invention/
`
`priority date of the patents-in-suit”). Ex. 2055, 64:22-65:11; 73:9-74:1. The excerpt
`
`is also irrelevant as “pre-existing wiring or cables”, BSTs, CMCs, and compliance
`
`with FCC regulations, are not relevant to any issue in this IPR including the scope
`
`of the challenged claims. Id., 78:7-22, 177:12-183:11; Reply, 2-4; Paper 55, 8-9.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 8: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question in part and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes
`
`Mr. Lewry’s clarification, during this line of questioning, that he was using the word
`
`“termination” “in its generic sense” and not “as a Bob Smith termination.” Ex. 2055,
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`67:13-23. The excerpt also notably excludes Mr. Crayford’s succeeding testimony
`
`that “when I was building 10Base-T systems in 1990, I knew nothing about [BSTs]
`
`and so -- nor did pretty much anybody else. So we built 10Base-T systems by the
`
`millions that did not have [BSTs] and yet met FCC. So there were . . . in this April,
`
`'98 timeframe . . . literally millions of 10Base-T connections out there which did not
`
`have [BSTs] . . . [A]fter the [Bob Smith patent] filing . . . the 10Base-T industry . . .
`
`didn't go back and design or redesign all the 10Base-T receivers to have [BSTs] . . .
`
`because, one, they didn't need them, and, two, they use more components than the
`
`existing terminations . . . which were terminating just fine and passing FCC.” Id.,
`
`68:21-71:6, 67:4-11. The excerpt is also irrelevant to any IPR issue (supra No. 7).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 9: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and excludes the
`
`portion of Mr. Crayford’s answer in which he states BSTs/CMCs are “not relevant
`
`at all” because Chrimar’s claims “don't require any of this” and “millions and
`
`millions of devices out there [] don't have BSTs and CMCs” (Ex. 2055, 77:24-79:2)
`
`and is irrelevant to any limitation in the challenged claims (see supra Nos. 7, 8).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 10: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as it
`
`quotes Mr. Lewry’s question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony and notably excludes
`
`the portion of Mr. Crayford’s answer in which he states:
`
`The rationale for bringing [the Fisher patents and DeNicolo patents] in
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`now is Dr. Madisetti made some statements to the effect that the
`phantom powering didn't exist in the timeframe of interest. And that's
`clearly not true. We have Hunter. We have Fisher. We have DeNicolo.
`We have -- all have shown embodiments of phantom powering, not
`power over Ethernet, but proprietary phantom powering over Ethernet
`data lines, and so we see, you know, multiple examples of evidence that
`. . . [p]hantom powering over Ethernet data cables was both known
`about and practiced in the April, 1998, timeframe for the priority date
`of the patents. Ex. 2055, 80:10-81:10; see also id. 84:9-18; 82:8-83:18.
`Mr. Crayford’s testimony is consistent with Petitioners’ Reply (p. 5-8) and identified
`
`reasons for including this rebuttal evidence. Paper 55, 9-10.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 11: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`irrelevant. Chrimar mischaracterizes (Motion, 4-5) Mr. Crayford’s rebuttal opinion
`
`in which he disagreed with Dr. Madisetti’s assumptions that because 10BASE-T and
`
`100BASE-T used Cat-3 and Cat-5 cables with RJ-45 connectors, this necessarily
`
`meant there were always 4 pairs available and connected, only two of which were
`
`used for data. Mr. Crayford’s testimony is that 2-pair Cat-3 and Cat-5 cables existed
`
`at the time of Chrimar’s alleged invention. Ex. 2055, 86:3-87:5, 89:16-17, 93:10-
`
`22, 94:18-24, 96:1-8; Reply, 13-14; Ex. 1046, ¶¶60-64; Ex. 2039, 145:14-21, 146:2-
`
`147:13, 149:17-20, 151:19-152:2. The excerpt is also misleading and irrelevant to
`
`any issue in this IPR as Chrimar does not and cannot show the accuracy of, and
`
`critically a nexus between the challenged claims and, its alleged skepticism
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`regarding Ethernet phantom powering. (Reply, 8-9; Paper 45, 11-12).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 12: This excerpt is misleading, mischaracterizing and
`
`irrelevant to any of the limitations in the challenged claims. Mr. Crayford explained
`
`in his rebuttal declaration (Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-68) and uncited testimony (e.g. Ex. 2055,
`
`33:17-34:11, 43:15-44:10), that Hunter teaches Ethernet in several different ways
`
`including “both an isoEthernet/802.9 network and also with parts of the network
`
`operating as 10Base-T LAN elements in that network.” Id., 32:15-33:16, 182:11-
`
`183:11; supra No. 1. Mr. Crayford relies on the 10Base-T and 100Base-T teachings
`
`of Hunter, and not exclusively on the Ethernet® teachings. Pet. 25-28; Reply, 14-
`
`15. Chrimar also mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s testimony at Ex. 2055, 30:24-
`
`31:21.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 13: These excerpts are misleading, mischaracterizing and
`
`incomplete. Chrimar mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s opinions and testimony.
`
`(Motion, 5-6). Mr. Crayford is not relying on Hunter’s reference to a “bus” as
`
`teaching 10Base-T or Ethernet data signals but rather many other explicitly
`
`identified examples of such teaching in Hunter (e.g. Ex. 1046, ¶¶67-69, 80-81; Ex.
`
`2055, 32:15-34:11, 43:15-44:10, 182:11-183:11). Mr. Crayford’s testimony in the
`
`cited and uncited excerpts and in his declarations is consistent with this. See supra
`
`No. 1.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 14-30, 33: The “Crayford Testimony” excerpts (Obs. No.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`14) are incomplete, mischaracterized and misleading. Chrimar deletes relevant
`
`testimony within each of the block citations and ignores related testimony (e.g. Ex.
`
`2055, 152:23-153:22, 143:7-18, 139:3-23, 135:19-23, 123:3-23, 120:1-12, 119:8-18,
`
`115:13-117:23, 107:20-108:4, 108:16-109:14). These Obs. are improper and should
`
`be expunged under the Trial Practice Guide, Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 157, 14 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012) because they only allege the excerpts are relevant to Mr. Crayford’s
`
`credibility without providing “a concise statement of the relevance of identified
`
`testimony to an identified argument or portion of an exhibit.” In reality, all of these
`
`excerpts are consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony that a POSITA would
`
`understand Hunter teaches a generic phantom power scheme applicable to
`
`IsoEthernet (in its various modes), 10Base-T, 100Base-T, and ISDN, and describe
`
`various examples in which one or more phantom power sources can be located in (i)
`
`hub 120 (of Figure 1) to provide Ethernet and/or ISDN data and power to, for
`
`example, PC 125, each of hubs 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (of Figure 1), and (ii) in each
`
`of hubs 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (of Figure 1), or (iii) on multiple ports in each of
`
`such hubs, to provide Ethernet and/or ISDN data and power to devices connected to
`
`them. Ex. 2055, 143:7-18, 152:23-153:22, 54:6-15, 56:1-4, 110:25-112:19, 125:12-
`
`126:20, 127:17-19, 128:5-129:9, 129:18-130:17, 132:25-133:17, 134:3-8, 135:4-9,
`
`135:19-23, 138:8-10, 138:16-18, 139:8-23, 146:14-148:4, 149:22-151:2, 178:11-
`
`181:10; Pet. 8-9, 25-28; Reply, 19-22; Ex. 1046, ¶¶73-79; Ex. 2039, 116:14-117:3,
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`124:15-25. These excerpts are also consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony that a
`
`POSITA would understand Hunter’s disclosure is not limited to the example
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 and that not all of the “Connectors” illustrated in Figure 2 are
`
`required for each of the phantom power examples described in Hunter. Ex. 1046,
`
`¶¶77-79; Reply, 20-21; Pet., 26-27; Ex. 2055, 143:7-18, 134:20-135:9, 109:23-
`
`110:1, 110:12-19. These excerpts are further consistent with Mr. Crayford’s
`
`testimony to rebut Dr. Madisetti’s overly narrow interpretation of “terminal
`
`equipment” (Resp. 30; cf. Ex. 1034) and his opinions (Resp. 30-34) that Hunter only
`
`teaches a phantom power source in hub 120 to provide ISDN data to an ISTE card
`
`in hub 150, and that Hunter’s description is limited to the example illustrated in
`
`Figure 2 including each of its “Connectors”. Ex. 1046, ¶¶69-79.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 14: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 57:6-18); is consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter; and
`
`is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in part
`
`(Id., 57:20-25) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 15: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 105:4-7); is consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter; and
`
`is mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in part (Ex. 2055,
`
`104:22-25) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 16: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 17: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 107:20-108:4, 108:16-109:14), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 18: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 115:13-117:23, 119:8-18), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 19: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 120:1-12), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 20: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 121:10-122:10), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with
`
`Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 21: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 22: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 128:11-129:9), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 23: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 24: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33), and
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical (Ex. 2055, 130:21-131:2).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 25: This excerpt is incomplete and misleading (deletes the
`
`relevant hypothetical of Mr. Lewry (Ex. 2055, 130:21-131:2 and 131:22-132:1) and
`
`relevant testimony within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 26: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33),
`
`and is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in
`
`part (Ex. 2055, 134:12-14) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 27: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 135:19-23), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 28: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-30, 33),
`
`and is further mischaracterized and misleading as it cites Mr. Lewry’s question in
`
`part (Ex. 2055, 136:1-5) and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Response to Obs. No. 29: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`within the block quote), mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Mr.
`
`Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 30: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony at
`
`Ex. 2055, e.g. 139:3-23, 141:13-142:5, 143:7-18), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 31: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading because Chrimar deletes the relevant context for the first excerpt, namely
`
`that Hunter’s disclosed examples include a Hub (e.g. 10Base-T hub 170 providing
`
`24 SNMP-managed 10Base-T ports), which includes a protective device for each TE
`
`(Ex. 2055, 143:22-144:17 citing IPR2016-01391, Ex. 1046, ¶87 citing Hunter 42:21-
`
`23 (“Under conditions wherein a high current power supply is used for supplying
`
`multiple ISTE's, current limiting on each port should be used to protect against
`
`shorting.”). Chrimar also deletes Mr. Lewry’s relevant hypothetical for the second
`
`excerpt (Ex. 2055, 165:13-18: “two phones plugged into the ISTE card that’s in
`
`computer 125 and one of the phones shorts”) without any further explanation of
`
`context (see id., 166:6-14). When taken in the proper context, Mr. Crayford’s cited
`
`testimony is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 32: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as the
`
`entirety quotes a portion of Mr. Lewry’s question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony;
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`notably excludes the context of Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical (Ex. 2055, 144:21-145:1);
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s response (id., 145:15-146:1); and deletes Mr.
`
`Crayford’s relevant testimony (id., 146:9-148:4). Mr. Crayford’s actual testimony
`
`is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 33: This excerpt is incomplete (deletes relevant testimony
`
`(Ex. 2055, 149:10-150:3, 150:11-151:2)), mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-30, 33.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 34-37: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading.
`
`The excerpts, entirely (Nos. 34, 36) or in part (No. 35), are quotes of Mr. Lewry’s
`
`questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony. They also exclude the context of the
`
`questions (Ex. 2055, 151:3-6 “the example . . . [of] multimedia hub connected to the
`
`PC 125”), Mr. Crayford’s characterization of this context as “one of the
`
`embodiments that’s covered by Figure 2” (id., 151:8-9), or delete Mr. Crayford’s
`
`relevant testimony. (Id., 151:17-24, 153:2-22 (“[T]here's nothing generically,
`
`though, in Hunter's Figure 2 that would stop the Ethernet device being phantom
`
`powered or a traditional -- ISDN phone being phantom powered or an internet --
`
`Ethernet internet phone being phantom powered. So I don't want to say, you know,
`
`phantom power can't work for the Ethernet portion of the system. Phantom power is
`
`provided.”), 154:13-24, 155:14-18, 156:14-157:6, 157:24-158:8, 158:15-21, 159:13-
`
`161:6, 161:24-162:3, 162:13-162:22). Mr. Crayford’s testimony is consistent with
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination. The excerpts in Nos. 35 and
`
`36 are also irrelevant. See supra No. 2.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 38: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading as Chrimar deletes the relevant context for the excerpt at 144:14-20 (see
`
`supra No. 31 citing Ex. 2055, 143:22-144:17) and as Mr. Lewry provided no further
`
`explanation of context for his hypothetical (Id., 165:13-18 which Mr. Crayford
`
`identified at 166:6-14). When taken in the proper context, Mr. Crayford’s cited
`
`testimony is consistent with his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 39-41: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading.
`
`They do not quote Mr. Crayford; they quote Mr. Lewry reading from a document
`
`(Ex. 2054 to Mr. Crayford’s deposition) that the Board denied Chrimar permission
`
`to file in this IPR. Petitioners also moved to exclude Ex. 2054 (and related
`
`testimony), including that which Chrimar includes in Obs. Nos. 39-41. See supra
`
`No. 4. Chrimar’s citation to its attorney’s testimony constitutes an improper
`
`introduction of new evidence and argument in its Motion, and an attempt to bypass
`
`the Court’s order rejecting its request to file a Sur-Reply. Id. Accordingly, Obs.
`
`Nos. 39-41 should be expunged. The excerpts are also misleading and irrelevant to
`
`any issue in this IPR. See supra No. 11. Obs. No. 40 also is incomplete as Mr.
`
`Crayford’s actual testimony is at Ex. 2055, 175:5-14 which states in part “I don’t
`
`have any opinion on this because . . . this is a brand new document.”
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Date: August 16, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Talin Gordnia
`Talin Gordnia (Reg. No. 76,214)
`
`Talin Gordnia, Reg. No. 76,214
`tgordnia@irell.com
`Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`mfleming@irell.com
`Jonathan Kagan, pro hac vice
`jkagan@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Nima Hefazi, Reg. No. 63,658
`nhefazi@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Fax: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01389 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO CHRIMAR'S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE are being served by electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties, the
`
`same day as the filing of the above-identified documents in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`CHRMC0108IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffman (Reg. No. 33,711)
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 1850
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffman@reising.com
`
`August 16, 2017
`
` /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`