`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01469
`Patent 9,094,268
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01469
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner DISH Network, L.L.C.
`
`(“Petitioner”) hereby responds
`
`to Patent Owner’s Objections
`
`to Evidence
`
`(“Objections”) served on February 28, 2017 as follows:
`
`Exhibits 1023-1049 and 1052-1053 are Relevant.
`
`Patent Owner objects that “[n]one of [exhibits 1023-1049, 1052-1053] are
`
`relevant under FRE 402, given that none of them were specifically cited or discussed
`
`in the Petition or Hoarty declaration.” Objections at 2. This is incorrect. At least
`
`the following exhibits were cited in the declaration of Leo Hoarty (“Hoarty Decl.”)
`
`(Ex. 1002) in at least the following pages or paragraphs:
`
`Exhibit
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`
`Cited in Hoarty Decl. (Ex. 1002) at:
`¶ 67 (page 46)
`¶ 9, ¶ 67 (page 46)
`Page 38 (Figure 2), ¶ 52, Page 42
`(Figure 5), ¶ 62, Page 52 (Figure 8), ¶
`76, ¶ 137
`Page 52 (Figure 8), ¶ 76
`Page 56 (Figure 11), Page 57 (Figure
`12), Page 58 (Figure 13), ¶¶ 85-89
`¶ 74, ¶ 77
`Page 51 (Figure 7), ¶ 75
`Page 34 (Table 1), ¶ 45, Page 35
`(Figure 1), ¶¶ 48-49
`¶ 50, Page 36 (Figure 2)
`¶ 92
`¶ 92
`¶ 161
`¶ 169
`¶ 164
`¶ 168
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01469
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`Hoarty used these exhibits to corroborate facts regarding the state of the art at the
`
`time of the invention. Therefore, these exhibits are relevant.
`
`The remaining exhibits are listed in the declaration starting on page 14 and are
`
`identified as relevant documents that Hoarty reviewed as part of preparing his
`
`declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶ 24.
`
` Exhibits 1019, 1035, 1036 and 1053 are Admissible.
`
`
`
`The above exhibits are authentic under FRE 901. Each is considered a
`
`periodical and is self-authenticating because it was published by either Electronic
`
`Products Magazine or EE Times, both of which are reputable publications. The fact
`
`that the articles were found online is irrelevant. Regardless, Petitioner is serving
`
`supplemental evidence proving the authenticity of Exhibit 1019. This supplemental
`
`evidence is identified as Proposed Exhibit 1057.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1019, 1035, 1036 and 1053 are not hearsay under FRE 801-802. As
`
`just discussed, these exhibits are periodicals. But even if these exhibits were
`
`considered hearsay, experts in inter partes review proceedings may rely on hearsay
`
`in their declarations. Fed. R. Evid. 703; Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben
`
`Foods, Inc., Case IPR2015-00249, Paper 76 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2016)
`
`(agreeing that hearsay evidence relied upon by expert is admissible because “Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on facts or data in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01469
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`case that an expert has been made aware of it experts in the field would reasonably
`
`have relied on such facts or data in forming an opinion”); Brose N. Am., Inc. and
`
`Brose Fahrzeugteile GmBH & Co. Kg, Hallstadt v. Uusi, LLC, Case IPR2014-
`
`00417, Paper 49 at 26 (P.T.A.B. July 20, 2015) (“… an expert may rely upon
`
`evidence regardless of whether the evidence is admissible…”). Therefore, Patent
`
`Owner’s hearsay objection has no merit.
`
`Exhibits 1021-1031, 1033, 1038-1039, 1041-1043, 1046, 1047, and 1052 May Be
`Relied Upon.
`
`For reasons just discussed, Petitioner’s expert, Leo Hoarty, is permitted to
`
`
`
`rely upon the above-mentioned exhibits regardless of their admissibility. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703; see also Brose N. Am., Case IPR2014-00417, Paper 49 at 26. Therefore,
`
`Patent Owner’s objections related to these exhibits have no merit.
`
`Dated: March 14, 2017
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 650-843-5001
`Fax: 650-849-7400
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe/
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01469
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sections 42.6, that a complete copy of
`the attached PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, and related documents, are being served via
`electronic mail on the 14th day of March, 2017, upon counsel of record for the
`Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`twimbiscus@ mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Scott P. McBride
`smcbride@ mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Christopher M. Scharff
`cscharff@ mcandrews-ip.com
`
`TQD-IPR2016-01469@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Dated: March 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`