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 IPR2016-013991
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00719, who have been joined to the
`
`instant proceeding.
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii
`
`List of Exhibits ......................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Madisetti Declaration should not be excluded based on
`Petitioners’ late objections ............................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ motion to exclude based on the “time of invention”
`is baseless .............................................................................................. 2
`Contrary to Petitioners’ unsupported statements, Dr. Madisetti’s
`Declaration is not based on speculation ................................................ 4
`1.
`“Unused Pairs” ............................................................................ 4
`2.
`“IsoEthernet” ............................................................................... 6
`3.
`“Noise in Bloch” ......................................................................... 7
`Dr. Madisetti’s Declaration is not inconsistent, but instead
`demonstrates that Petitioners’ use of Hunter is inconsistent................. 9
`D. Dr. Madisetti properly analyzed the entire Hunter reference,
`unlike Petitioners ................................................................................... 9
`Dr. Madisetti properly provided powered-off testimony ....................10
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`III. The Board should not exclude the IEEE exhibits ..........................................11
`
`IV. Exhibit 2047 is proper ...................................................................................14
`
`V.
`
`Exhibit 2049 is Relevant ................................................................................14
`
`VI. Exhibits 2050 and 2054 are relevant to Mr. Crayford’s testimony ...............15
`
`VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................15
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................17
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Achates Ref. Pub’g Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00080, Paper 90 (PTAB June 2, 2014) ............................................ 2
`
`Google, Inc., et. al. v. Jongerius Panoramic Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00191, Paper 70 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2014) .......................................... 2
`
`In re Am Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 1
`
`Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Comp. Sys.,
`
`CV 10-04645 RS, 2013 WL 3786633 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) .......... 13, 14
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2014) ........................................ 1
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................13
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna Electronics, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-01204, Paper No. 52 (Jan. 25, 2016) .............................................12
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 .................................................................................... 2, 4, 5, 9, 10
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 .....................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Identifier
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 96, filed in Chrimar Systems,
`Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action
`No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 105, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 108, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 122, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent,
`et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-
`JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 123, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent,
`et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-
`JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`2035 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 318, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`2036 Response to Office Action (Reexam
`Control No. 90/009,513) (June 15,
`2010)
`
`Date
`10/22/2014
`
`1/8/2015
`
`1/16/2015
`
`3/28/2016
`
`3/28/2016
`
`9/27/2016
`
`6/15/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Date
`11/22/2010
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`
`
`11/5/1999
`
`Madisetti Decl.
`Crayford Dep.
`Anderson 1999
`slides
`
`3/7-8/2000
`
`5/24-25/2000
`
`
`
`
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Dove slides
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Anderson 2000
`slides
`
`7/11-12/2000
`
`
`
`
`
`Karam slides
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2037 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte
`Reexamination Certificate (Reexam
`Control No. 90/009,513) (Nov. 22,
`2010)
`2038 Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`2039 Deposition transcript of Ian Crayford
`2040
`Slides titled “DTE Power via MDI:
`System Requirements,” presented on
`November 5, 1999 by Arlan Anderson
`of Nortel Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from March 7-8,
`2000
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from May 24-25,
`2000
`Slides titled “DTE Power over MDI:
`Building Consensus,” presented on
`May 24, 2000 by Ralph Andersson of
`TDK Semiconductor, Daniel Dove of
`Hewlett Packard, and Robert Muir of
`Level One Communications
`Slides titled “Powering and Discovery
`Alternatives,” presented on May 24,
`2000 by Arlan Anderson of Nortel
`Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from July 11-12,
`2000
`Slides titled “Technical Feasibility of
`Sending Common Mode Power on the
`Signal Pairs,” presented on May 24,
`2000 by Roger Karam and Karl
`Nakamura of Cisco Systems
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2047
`
`Description
`E. Krol & E. Hoffman, Internet
`Engineering Task Force Network
`Working Group, Request for
`Comments: 1462, “FYI on “What is
`the Internet?’”
`2048 Declaration of Clyde Camp
`2049 U.S. Patent No. 5,995,392
`2050 Madisetti Curriculum Vitae
`2051 Not used
`2052 U.S. Pat. No. 7,061,142 B1
`2053
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti (pending approval to be
`filed)
`2054 Declaration of Steven Johnson
`(pending approval to be filed)
`2055 Crayford 7-21-17 Deposition
`Transcript (pending approval to be
`filed)
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Date
`May 1993
`
`Identifier
`Krol RFC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Camp Decl.
`
`
`
`the ‘142 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude (“Motion”) should be denied because
`
`Petitioners failed to: (1) provide timely and complete objections to Patent Owner
`
`which cover the bases for their Motion, and (2) set forth any legitimate basis for
`
`excluding the challenged evidence of the Patent Owner.
`
`II. The Madisetti Declaration should not be excluded based on
`Petitioners’ late objections
`
`Petitioners’ Motion misapplies the law. Petitioners claim that it is an “abuse
`
`of discretion to admit expert testimony” citing Daubert and Kumho Tire. But these
`
`cases involve a district court’s role as a gatekeeper for a jury – they have nothing
`
`to with admission of evidence in an IPR. And Petitioners fail to cite a single Board
`
`decision where Daubert was the sole basis for exclusion of expert testimony. See,
`
`e.g., Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper
`
`66 at 60 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2014) (rejecting Fed. R. Evid. 702 challenge to expert
`
`testimony because “[i]t is within the Board’s discretion to assign the appropriate
`
`weight to be accorded to evidence.”). Unlike jury concerns, the Board is fully
`
`capable of weighing the evidence presented and decide on its own whether that
`
`evidence is relevant to the issues presented. Id.; see also, e.g., In re Am Acad. of Sci.
`
`Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board can assign the
`
`appropriate weight without resorting to improper exclusion of evidence. Id.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ motion to exclude based on the “time of invention” is
`baseless
`
`A party wishing to challenge the admissibility of evidence must timely object
`
`to the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). “Once a trial has been instituted, any
`
`objection must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the
`
`objection is directed.” Id. Importantly, “[t]he objection must identify the grounds
`
`for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of
`
`supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) (emphasis added). Failure to provide
`
`timely objections with sufficient particularity deprives the other party of any
`
`potential remedial measures provided by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). See, e.g., Google,
`
`Inc., et. al. v. Jongerius Panaramic Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00191, Paper 70, at 64-
`
`65 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2014) (denying a motion to exclude because Patent Owner failed
`
`to identify and explain the associated objections); Apple Inc. v. Achates Ref. Pub’g
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper 90 at 49 (PTAB June 2, 2014).
`
`Petitioners’ Motion references paragraphs 37, 85, 90, 155, 189, and 232 of
`
`Ex. 2038, and seeks to exclude the Madisetti Declaration allegedly in its entirety
`
`because “Dr. Madisetti relies on the wrong date of invention.” (Motion, p. 2.)
`
`Petitioners identify their Objections (“Paper 27”) on page 1 of their Motion, but then
`
`ignore those Objections when seeking to have Dr. Madisetti’s declaration excluded
`
`based on the wrong invention date. The reason is clear – Petitioners did not present
`
`any timely Objections based on the date of invention. Indeed, Petitioners’
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`Objections never mention “a time of invention issue” and, instead, reference
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`different paragraphs—45, 56, 93, 157, and 191 (Paper 27 at 2)—of the Madisetti
`
`Declaration, which have nothing to do with “date of invention.” Accordingly,
`
`Petitioners waived any “time of invention” objection.
`
`In any event, the “time of invention” is irrelevant to the matters at issue in the
`
`Petition, which is likely why Petitioners did not timely raise this issue. Petitioners
`
`cite no evidence that anything relevant to Petition Grounds 1 and 2 changed between
`
`1997 (the date mentioned by Dr. Madisetti) and 1998 (the date on the patent). If
`
`Petitioners had relied on prior art from 1998 (e.g., the De Nicolo patents), Patent
`
`Owner would have presented evidence of its 1997 invention. Petitioners cite broadly
`
`to “prior art patents on the face of the ‘760 patent” to claim relevance, but in reality,
`
`Petitioners filed a Reply that includes improper new exhibits (two Fisher patents and
`
`two De Nicolo patents, Ex. 1025-1028) and a lengthy discussion of those new
`
`exhibits by Mr. Crayford (Ex. 1046 at ¶¶27-35). These references did not appear in
`
`the Petition and form no part of any invalidity Ground presented. Petitioners’
`
`untimely reliance on the De Nicolo patents forecloses Patent Owner from
`
`establishing that De Nicolo, and other late references, are not prior art to Chrimar’s
`
`patents as Chrimar did in another IPR (IPR2016-00569) where De Nicolo was the
`
`basis for the asserted Ground. In its Response, Chrimar established that the De
`
`Nicolo patents are not prior art. (Id., Paper 31 at 17-27).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Petitioners waived any objection based on “time of the invention.” Had that
`
`objection been raised in the Objections (Paper 27), Chrimar would have presented
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) evidence, like that provided in IPR2016-00569, of
`
`prior invention. Petitioners’ failure to object with particularity deprived Chrimar of
`
`the remedies provided for by the Rules.
`
`B. Contrary to Petitioners’ unsupported statements, Dr. Madisetti’s
`Declaration is not based on speculation
`
`Petitioners’ Motion objects to Dr. Madisetti’s opinions regarding “unused
`
`pairs,” “isoEthernet,” and “noise in Bloch.” But Petitioners did not identify these
`
`objections in their Objections (Paper 27). Accordingly, since these objections were
`
`not set forth “with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of
`
`supplemental evidence,” Petitioners have waived them. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b).
`
`Petitioners’ failure to provide an objection with sufficient particularity has deprived
`
`Chrimar of the remedial measures provided for by the Rules.
`
`Chrimar addresses the specific waivers below, showing why each objection is
`
`meritless.
`
`1.
`
`“Unused Pairs”
`
`Petitioners object to paragraphs 37, 48, 49, and 51 of the Madisetti Declaration
`
`–objections not raised in Petitioners’ Objections (Paper 27)–and therefore objections
`
`that are waived. For the paragraphs Petitioners did identify in their Objections,
`
`Chrimar supplied supplemental evidence as permitted by the Rules. (Paper 31). To
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`permit Petitioners to present a Motion to Exclude on items not raised in their
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`objections deprives Chrimar of the remedial measures provided for by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2).
`
`Petitioners argue that Dr. Madisetti is incorrect regarding the availability of
`
`“unused pairs.” Rather than arguing to exclude evidence, Petitioners seem to be
`
`simply repackaging their Reply arguments – not their objections – to present in this
`
`Motion. Such re-hashing of the Reply is improper as it provides Petitioners
`
`additional pages (not provided for by the rules) to argue their grounds.
`
`Regardless, Petitioners’ arguments fall flat. Dr. Madisetti relied on his
`
`education, training, and experience for these opinions. (See, e.g., Ex. 1020, 342:5-
`
`343:2; 351:9-17, 353:6-17.) In addition, Dr. Madisetti relied on the IEEE 802.3
`
`specification that Petitioners presented in their “Petition Figure 7.” That diagram
`
`shows eight pins of the standard RJ-45 jack and plug and states that there are two
`
`pairs of contacts “not used by 10BASE-T.” Dr. Madisetti’s opinions were fully
`
`supported. They should not be excluded.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`This is just one item of evidence which demonstrates that “unused pairs” were
`
`available. In paragraph 55 of his Declaration, Dr. Madisetti identifies the Huizinga
`
`reference as further support. (Ex. 2038.) This testimony is not “speculation” as
`
`Petitioners claim, but is a real world analysis (including the IEEE recognition of
`
`“unused pairs”) used to evaluate Petitioners’ hindsight-based reconstructions of the
`
`claimed invention. See, e.g., Ex. 2038 at ¶¶49-67. Petitioners’ request to exclude
`
`this evidence is meritless.
`
`2.
`
`“IsoEthernet”
`
`Petitioners contest paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Madisetti Declaration. Again,
`
`those paragraphs were never mentioned in Petitioners’ Objections (Paper 27).
`
`Instead, Petitioners again default to rearguing their Reply brief – even citing
`
`to sections of it. (Motion at 7.) These arguments are predicated on Petitioners
`
`shifting away from their stated Grounds in the Petition to an alternative argument
`
`relying on IEEE 802.9 in Ground 1. But the Petition’s only basis that Ground 1
`
`discloses Ethernet is Hunter (Ex. 1003) – nothing else. (See, e.g., Pet. at 7.)
`
`In their original Petition, Petitioners assert that the “10Base-T bus” disclosed
`
`in Fig. 2 (comprising connectors 240, 250) carried Ethernet data. (See, e.g., Pet. at
`
`24-26.) Four times, without explanation, the Petition references Hunter’s term
`
`“isoEthernet®” separate and apart from “Ethernet®.” (E.g., Pet. at 8, 26.)
`
`But in their Reply, Petitioners rely on a different standard covering
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`isoEthernet®. Crayford’s new expert declaration, submitted with the Reply, makes
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`this change clear. (Reply at 15:10-12; 19:14-17; 22:3-10; Ex. 1046 at ¶¶48, 67-68,
`
`74, 80-81). But if Petitioners wanted to rely on a particular standard to support one
`
`of their grounds they should have raised the standard in their original Petition, as
`
`they were required to do by 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5). Now, Petitioners claim that
`
`Dr. Madisetti is “unreliable” because he pointed out the flaws in Ground 1, but
`
`Petitioners’ own expert testified that Dr. Madisetti was correct. (Ex. 2055 at 15:2-
`
`16:9; see also, Ex. 1003 (Hunter) at 14:24-15:21; Pet. at 27.) Petitioners now
`
`improperly seek to change Ground 1 by relying on evidence that was not presented
`
`in the Petition. This is not a flaw in Dr. Madisetti’s analysis, but an
`
`acknowledgement by Petitioners that they failed to meet their burden of proof and
`
`need to revamp their theory. Petitioners’ motion to exclude Dr. Madisetti’s opinions
`
`regarding isoEthernet should be denied.
`
`3.
`
`“Noise in Bloch”
`
`Petitioners specifically take issue with paragraphs 30 and 86 of the Madisetti
`
`Declaration regarding noise in the Bloch combination of Ground 2. But, those
`
`paragraphs were not identified in Petitioners’ Objections (Paper 27), so the objection
`
`is untimely.
`
`As noted in Dr. Madisetti’s declaration (¶86), Petitioners’ expert, Mr.
`
`Crayford, admitted that there was a “possibility” of a noise risk if the Bloch circuitry
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`was used in an Ethernet network. (See, e.g., Ex. 2039 at 172:20-173:13; 168:6-14;
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`169:14-15.) Mr. Crayford further acknowledged that Bob Smith terminations are
`
`used “for signaling integrity reasons, primary to clean up signal and minimize
`
`emissions,” and without such a termination there is noise. (Ex. 2039 at 43:11-18.)
`
`Combining Bloch and IEEE as proposed by the Petition would destroy the Bob
`
`Smith terminations, and therefore, introduce unacceptable noise. Notably,
`
`Petitioners’ Motion does not contest Dr. Madisetti’s opinion–they can’t. Petitioners’
`
`own expert confirmed these well-understood principles based on his own education,
`
`experience, and training. Petitioners purport to be unable to “assess whether the
`
`reasoning or methodology underlying [Dr. Madisetti’s] testimony is scientifically
`
`valid.” (Mtn. at 8.) Petitioners could just ask their own expert about the validity of
`
`this statement, just like Dr. Madisetti did during his deposition. There is no lack of
`
`support.
`
`If Petitioners had properly objected in a timely fashion, Chrimar could have
`
`assessed whether additional support (in addition to Mr. Crayford’s testimony and
`
`basic knowledge of frequency switching as described) was required. Because
`
`Petitioners did not raise this objection, Patent Owner was deprived of its opportunity
`
`to supplement the already established record on the presence of noise without a
`
`functioning Bob Smith termination.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`C. Dr. Madisetti’s Declaration is not inconsistent, but instead
`demonstrates that Petitioners’ use of Hunter is inconsistent
`
`Petitioners take issue for the first time with paragraphs 69 and 167 of the
`
`Madisetti Declaration. Again, Petitioners waived those objections by not raising
`
`them in Paper 27. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b).
`
`Petitioners now argue that Dr. Madisetti uses a faulty claim construction for
`
`“terminal equipment.” Dr. Madisetti testifies that “terminal” means at the end.
`
`Indeed, anyone can look to a dictionary to understand that this is true. In fact, other
`
`claims use the term “end device” as a synonym. Instead of using the ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim term, as stated in the Petition, Petitioners seek to construe
`
`“terminal equipment” for the first time in their Reply and purport to define it as
`
`equipment that can be in the middle (“intermediate”) rather than at the end. (Reply
`
`at 12.) Such an interpretation by Petitioners is too late and improperly strips this
`
`limitation of its meaning. Again, Petitioners have repackaged their Reply as a
`
`Motion to Exclude – even relying on portions of their Reply (Mot. at 12-15) for
`
`support. Regardless, this objection was not raised previously and has been waived.
`
`D. Dr. Madisetti properly analyzed the entire Hunter reference,
`unlike Petitioners
`
`Petitioners take issue for the first time with paragraph 83 of the Madisetti
`
`Declaration. Again, Petitioners waived those objections by not raising them in Paper
`
`27. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b).
`
`Petitioners argue that because a protective device is disclosed and included in
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`some claims of Hunter, Dr. Madisetti took the disclosure from Hunter that a
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`“protective device 213 is desirable, but not necessary to the present invention” out
`
`of context. Petitioners have their opinion and Dr. Madisetti has his opinion. There
`
`is no basis for Petitioners’ complaint. But, the Board can analyze the various
`
`positions and determine which is more credible.
`
`E. Dr. Madisetti properly provided powered-off testimony
`
`Petitioners take issue for the first time with paragraph 140-154 and 216-231
`
`of the Madisetti Declaration. Again, Petitioners waived those objections by not
`
`raising them in Paper 27. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b).
`
`Further, because Petitioners have no meritorious response, they now wrongly
`
`claim that Dr. Madisetti’s testimony is based on an “improper and irrelevant claim
`
`construction” and
`
`then
`
`later describes
`
`that construction as a “narrowed
`
`construction.” (Motion at 11.) Dr. Madisetti relied on the Board’s construction of
`
`“powered-off” as he made clear in ¶¶101 and 102 of his Declaration. Applying the
`
`Board’s construction, it is clear that the Petition’s Grounds rely on references, which
`
`involve application of operating power.
`
`The Petition made no real attempt to demonstrate that its combinations
`
`worked on equipment “without operating power,” i.e., the Board’s construction of
`
`“powered-off” and related terms. (See, e.g., IPR2016-01391, Paper 9 at 9-10.) But
`
`now, because the Petition was deficient on this issue, Petitioners claim that an
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`example of a device having some power applied, but not “operating power” in the
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`colloquial sense, e.g., a VCR plugged in but not turned-on, lacks “operating power.”
`
`That Dr. Madisetti disagrees is no basis to exclude Dr. Madisetti’s testimony on this
`
`issue.
`
`III. The Board should not exclude the IEEE exhibits
`
`With respect to the IEEE exhibits (Exs. 2040-2046) and the Camp Decl. (Ex.
`
`2048), Petitioners object on authentication, hearsay, and relevance – objections they
`
`timely asserted in Paper 27. Nevertheless, the objections are meritless.
`
`On authentication, paragraphs 4-11 of Ex. 2048 have sufficient support
`
`because the declarant Clyde Camp, has personal knowledge of the matters stated in
`
`those paragraphs. In his declaration, Mr. Camp avers that he makes his declaration
`
`“on personal knowledge.” (Ex. 2048, ¶1.) In addition, in paragraph 2, Mr. Camp
`
`provides details of his background and involvement with the IEEE that support his
`
`knowledge of the facts stated in his declaration. In paragraph 3, Mr. Camp avers: “I
`
`was personally aware that this work [in the 802.3af Committee] was being done and
`
`I am familiar with the record-keeping system and policies used by IEEE 802
`
`LAN/MAN Standards Committee including 802.3af.” Moreover, the documents
`
`themselves, and the links to them on the IEEE 802.af website are further “evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the item[s] [are] what [Chrimar] claims [they
`
`are].” Fed. R. Evid. 901. Chrimar provided further evidence of authenticity via the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`declaration of Steven Johnson (Ex. 2054), which establishes that the documents were
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`indexed and captured by the Internet Archive about the time they were created. This
`
`is ample evidence to establish the authenticity of the documents, demonstrated by
`
`Petitioners’ own actions: (1) Petitioners did not depose Messrs. Camp nor Johnson
`
`and failed to present any contrary evidence, and (2) Petitioners included similar
`
`IEEE 802.3af meeting records with their Reply (Exs. 1035-1042) obtained from the
`
`same source as Chrimar’s exhibits and relying on that source as authenticity for their
`
`exhibits. Similar IEEE documents were deemed admissible in previous PTAB
`
`proceedings with less supporting evidence. Valeo North America, Inc. v. Magna
`
`Electronics, Inc., IPR2014-01204, Paper No. 52 at 13-14 (Jan. 25, 2016).
`
`Regarding hearsay, these documents have relevance to this matters whether
`
`true or not. These exhibits confirm that the IEEE committee recorded skepticism of
`
`experts in the art. Regardless of whether the statements were truthful, the record
`
`shows they were made. Moreover, even if used as hearsay, an expert may rely on
`
`hearsay evidence especially of the type presented – IEEE Committee meeting
`
`records. Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Comp. Sys., CV 10-04645 RS, 2013 WL
`
`3786633 at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) (“Experts are, however, permitted to rely
`
`on hearsay evidence in coming to their conclusions, so long as an expert in the field
`
`would reasonably rely on that information.”)
`
`On relevance, these exhibits are highly relevant. Petitioner seeks exclusion
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`because these records are damaging to their Petition. At the time of his first
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`declaration, Mr. Crayford was aware of the IEEE 802.3af PoE committee. (Ex. 2039
`
`at 187:24-188:25.) Petitioners have the burden of proof on obviousness, including
`
`all the Graham factors, Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013) (“The burden of proof lies with the challenger, and this court has rejected
`
`any formal burden-shifting framework in evaluating the four Graham factors.”), and
`
`“expressions of surprise or skepticism by experts and those skilled in the art” is one
`
`of the factors (Ex. 1002, ¶30; compare with Pet., which omits Graham).
`
`Nonetheless, neither Mr. Crayford nor the Petition addressed the skepticism
`
`committee members expressed about the suggestion to apply power to the Ethernet
`
`signal-carrying conductors (e.g., Exs. 2040-2046) as late as 1999-2000.
`
`Petitioners now claim that these exhibits do not pertain to any of the
`
`challenged claims or limitations. (Motion at 13.) To the contrary, Petitioners claim
`
`that their combination of references would have been obvious to those skilled in the
`
`art. For example, the Petition seeks to add Bloch’s telephony-based phantom
`
`powering to IEEE standards as its obviousness combination. The IEEE 802.3af
`
`committee was looking at phantom powering proposals and applying power to the
`
`signal pairs of conductors (as proposed in Petition Grounds 1 and 2) was met with
`
`great skepticism by the experts. This real world, objective evidence is perhaps the
`
`most highly relevant evidence of non-obviousness that can be presented.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`IV. Exhibit 2047 is proper
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Exhibit 2047 provides the only unbiased definition of “protocol” in the record.
`
`Petitioners object on authentication and hearsay grounds. For authentication, Dr.
`
`Madisetti (at ¶104) identified the webpage from which he obtained Exhibit 2047.
`
`Exhibit 2047 is a true and correct copy of the content from that cited website.
`
`Moreover, the IETF.org is a highly respected and reliable source of information.
`
`Furthermore, contrary to Petitioners’ claims, Exhibit 2047 is not hearsay any
`
`more than a dictionary is hearsay for its definitions. Exhibit 2047 is not being
`
`offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, Exhibit 2047 merely provides a
`
`definition of the term “protocol” from an authoritative technical source, the weight
`
`of which can be decided by the Board when construing the term “protocol.”
`
`Moreover, Dr. Madisetti can rely on hearsay. Interwoven at *7. Finally, Exhibit
`
`2047 is relevant because it provides additional context of what the term “protocol”
`
`means in the context of the computer networking field and the Chrimar patent.
`
`V. Exhibit 2049 is Relevant
`
`Petitioners cite no support for their arguments that this Exhibit is irrelevant
`
`and requires exclusion. On its face, U.S. Patent No. 5,995,392 (Ex. 2049) indicates
`
`that during the relevant timeframe of the ‘760 patent, inventors in the relevant field
`
`were writing – and filing patents – about thermistors that could protect circuits
`
`without interfering with normal device power-up. This is relevant because it refutes
`
`Petitioners’ reason to combine Hunter and Bulan, i.e., that the thermistors described
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`in Hunter are inferior to the Bulan current limiting circuit. Finally, contrary to
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`Petitioners’ objections, the Board is fully capable of weighing the relevance of
`
`Exhibit 2049 without the concern of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues.
`
`VI. Exhibits 2050 and 2054 are relevant to Mr. Crayford’s testimony
`
`On July 21, 2017, Chrimar took the Second Deposition of Mr. Crayford.
`
`During the deposition, Mr. Crayford was presented with Exhibits 2050 and 2054,
`
`which are relevant to the cross-examination of Mr. Crayford and the veracity of his
`
`testimony. For example, Mr. Crayford asserts that Hunter discloses delivering
`
`phantom power in isoEthernet’s 10Base-T mode. Yet, Exhibit 2050, an IEEE 802.9f
`
`isoEthernet draft specification, states unequivocally, that as late as 1999, it was not
`
`possible to phantom-power isoEthernet’s 10Base-T mode. Similarly, Exhibit 2054
`
`confirms that the CAT-3 and CAT-5 cable specification required 4 pairs of
`
`conductors, not two as Mr. Crayford claimed.
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated above, Petitioners motion to exclude should be denied
`
`in its entirety.
`
`Dated: August 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
` /Marc Lorelli/
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 8,902,760
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110IPR1
`
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann (Reg. No. 33,711)
`Reising Ethington PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
`Troy, Michigan