UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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. IPR2016-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`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
`
`
`
`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. IPR2016-01391
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`Petitioners hereby submit their Response in Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observations (Paper 44) (“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 entire excerpt quotes from the examining attorney’s (Mr. Lewry)
`
`question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony, and it excludes Mr. Lewry’s preceding
`
`statement “I'm not talking about isoEthernet now.” Ex. 20552, 25:9-13. Mr.
`
`Crayford’s uncited response (Id., 25:14-22) and related uncited testimony3 is
`
`1 Chrimar’s Motion could be expunged as it references a deposition transcript (Ex.
`
`2055) that was not in the record in contravention of 37 C.F.R. §42.6(c). Chrimar did
`
`not try to rectify this deficiency until August 8, after which the parties reached an
`
`agreement on August 11 (Paper 51) and the transcript was admitted on August 14.
`
`2 Cites to Ex. 2055 in this paper include the errata sheet (Ex. 1049) filed herewith.
`
`3 See id., 16:20-18:23, 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,
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`consistent with his opinions that various examples in Hunter teach Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment (e.g. 10Base-T equipment and systems) and Ethernet communications
`
`(e.g. 10Base-T, 100Base-T, and isoEthernet, which includes Ethernet and ISDN).
`
`Pet., 8-9, Reply, 10-18; Ex. 1046, ¶¶64-100; infra Nos. 14-29, 32.
`
`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, 5-6; 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, 21-41; Reply, 10-27. 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, ¶¶66-67) and uncited testimony (e.g.
`
`Ex. 2055, 32:15-34:11, 43:15-44:10), based on a proper analysis of the disclosure of
`
`41:7-43:20; 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.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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
`
`(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 46. 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
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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, ¶80. Chrimar’s mischaracterization
`
`is also inconsistent with its own expert’s testimony that Hunter’s abbreviation “AU”
`
`referred to “access unit” in the 802.9 standard. Reply, 18 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. 40
`
`(“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 52, 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
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`with FCC regulations, are not relevant to any issue in this IPR including the
`
`challenged claims scope. Id., 78:7-22, 177:12-183:11; Reply, 2-4; Paper 52, 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,
`
`67:13-23. The excerpt also excludes Mr. Crayford’s succeeding testimony (“[T]here
`
`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].”) Id., 68:21-71:6, 67:4-11. The excerpt is also irrelevant
`
`to any issue in this IPR (see 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, 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).
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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
`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 . . . 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. 4-6) and identified
`
`reasons for including this rebuttal evidence. Paper 52, 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, 9-10; Ex. 1046, ¶¶59-63; Ex. 2039, 145:14-21, 146:2-
`
`147:13, 149:17-20, 151:19-152:2. The excerpt is also misleading and irrelevant to
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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
`
`regarding Ethernet phantom powering. (Reply, 6-7; Paper 46, 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, ¶¶66-67) 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.; see 32:15-33:16; supra
`
`No. 1. Mr. Crayford relies on the 10Base-T and 100Base-T teachings of Hunter, and
`
`not exclusively on the Ethernet® teachings. Pet. 24-27; Reply, 10-11. 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, ¶¶66-68, 79-80; 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.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 14-29, 32: The “Crayford Testimony” excerpts (Obs. No.
`
`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-
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`181:10; Pet. 8-9, 24-27; Reply, 15-18; Ex. 1046, ¶¶72-78; Ex. 2039, 116:14-117:3,
`
`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,
`
`¶¶76-78; Reply, 10-11; Pet., 16-17; Ex. 2055, 143:7-18, 134:20-135:9, 109:23-
`
`110:1, 110:12-19. These excerpts are also consistent with his testimony to rebut Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s overly narrow interpretation of “terminal equipment” (Resp. 34-35; cf.
`
`Ex. 1034), and his opinions (Resp. 34-39) 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, ¶¶68-78.
`
`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. 14-29, 32.
`
`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. 14-29, 32.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Response to Obs. No. 16: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter. See supra Nos. 14-29, 32.
`
`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. 14-29, 32.
`
`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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 19: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 20: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 21: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 22: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Response to Obs. No. 23: This excerpt is mischaracterized, misleading, and
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-29, 32), and
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical (Ex. 2055, 130:21-131:2).
`
`Response to Obs. No. 24: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 25: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-29, 32),
`
`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. 26: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 27: This excerpt is incomplete, mischaracterized, misleading,
`
`and consistent with Mr. Crayford’s testimony on Hunter (see supra Nos. 14-29, 32),
`
`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.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Response to Obs. No. 28: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 29: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 30: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading because they delete (i) the relevant context for the first excerpt, 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 Ex. 1046, ¶87 citing Hunter 42:21-23 (“Under
`
`conditions wherein a high current power supply is used for supplying multiple
`
`ISTEs, current limiting on each port should be used to protect against shorting.”)
`
`and (ii) Mr. Lewry’s hypothetical for the second excerpt (Id., 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 (id., 166:6-14). Taken in the
`
`proper context, Mr. Crayford’s cited testimony is consistent with his opinions
`
`regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 31: This excerpt is mischaracterized and misleading as the
`
`entirety quotes a portion of Mr. Lewry’s question and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony,
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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. 32: 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. 14-29, 32.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 33-34: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading.
`
`The excerpts, entirely (No. 33) or in part (No. 34), 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, 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 his opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan
`
`combination. The No. 34 excerpt is also irrelevant. Supra No. 2.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 35: These excerpts are incomplete, mischaracterizing and
`
`misleading as Chrimar deletes the relevant context for the excerpt at 144:14-20 (see
`
`supra No. 30 citing Ex. 2055, 143:22-144:17) and as Mr. Lewry provided no further
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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. No. 36: This excerpt is incomplete (Chrimar deletes relevant
`
`testimony at Ex. 2055, 167:10-19, 167:22-168:7 168:12-13, 168:17-170:1),
`
`mischaracterized, misleading, and consistent with Petitioners’ arguments that the
`
`Hunter-Bulan combination teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Pet.,
`
`8-15, 21-41; Reply, 10-27; see infra No. 37.
`
`Response to Obs. No. 37: These excerpts are mischaracterized and misleading. The
`
`entirety quotes Mr. Lewry’s questions and not Mr. Crayford’s testimony,
`
`mischaracterizes Mr. Crayford’s responses (Ex. 2055, 170:12 (“[Power] is VI, volts
`
`times amps”) and 171:9-13 (“In a hypothetical situation I don't know -- I don't
`
`understand under which conditions you're asking me. So if you can give me an
`
`example of some clarification.”)), and deletes relevant testimony. Id., 167:10-168:7
`
`(including: “[M]y rebuttal was based on . . . the opinion of Dr. Madisetti that any
`
`power applied to the device whatsoever was operational power.”), 168:12-13,
`
`168:17-170:1 (“Dr. Madisetti drew a pretty nice diagram during his deposition . . .
`
`in the [] rectangle marked ‘Ethernet terminal equipment,’ he has a device called a
`
`remote module . . . [t]hat's the remote module discussed in the patents. And he has a
`
`PC/phone device, and he says they’re in the Ethernet terminal equipment, and we
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`know that the remote module is powered. So I would classify the remote module as
`
`similar to the VCR’s ancillary functions in this guise. It's not taking operational
`
`power, but it's certainly got some power applied to it.”) These excerpts are also
`
`consistent with Mr. Crayford’s opinions regarding the Hunter-Bulan combination,
`
`the Bloch-IEEE-Huizinga combination, and that each combination discloses the
`
`“powered-off” limitations under the Board’s claim construction. Pet., 8-24, 28-37,
`
`39-41, 42-48, 50-53, 56-61, 63-65; Reply, 12-14, 19-21, 22-29; see supra No. 2.
`
`Response to Obs. Nos. 38-40: 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. 38-40. 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. 38-40 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 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01391 Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion for Observations
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`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
`CHRMC0109IPR1@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
`
`
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
