Filed on behalf of TQ Delta, LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01470
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01470
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections to Evidence
`IPR2016-01470
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files and serves the following objections to evidence that
`
`Petitioner Dish Network, LLC (“Dish”) served on Patent Owner with its Petition
`
`on July 21, 2016, 2017. A chart listing Patent Owner’s objections and its bases for
`
`the objections is provided below.
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection
`
`Relevance: None of these exhibits are
`relevant under FRE 402, given that none of
`them were specifically cited or discussed in
`the Petition or Hoarty declaration.
`Petitioner cannot block-designate into
`evidence exhibits without any showing in
`the Petition or declaration as to their
`relevance.
`
`Authenticity: Petitioner has not provided
`any evidence that these exhibits are
`authentic under FRE 901. The exhibits do
`not fall within any of the self-authenticating
`exceptions of FRE 902; they are not
`newspapers or periodicals. See, e.g., Adobe
`Sys. v. Christenson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`16977, *26 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011) (“Courts
`do not treat printouts from internet websites
`as self-authenticating or admit them without
`foundation or authentication.”); In re
`Homestore.com., Inc. v. Securities
`Litigation, 347 F.Supp.2d 769, 782-783
`(C.D. Cal. 2004 (“Printouts from a web site
`do not bear the indicia of reliability
`demanded for other self-authenticating
`documents under Fed.R.Evid. 902. To be
`
`2
`
`Exs. 1023-1049, 1051-1052
`
`Ex. 1019 (internet article purporting
`to be from Electronic Products
`Magazine Digital Edition)
`
`Exs.1035-36, 1052 (internet articles
`purporting to be from EE Times)
`
`
`
`
`
`authenticated, some statement or affidavit
`from someone with knowledge is required;
`for example, Homestore's web master or
`someone else with personal knowledge
`would be sufficient.”)
`
`Hearsay: The exhibits are hearsay under
`FRE 801-802. They do not fall within any
`of the exceptions of FRE 803; they are not
`statements in a learned treatise or
`periodicals. See, e.g., Combs v.
`Washington, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121320
`(W.D. Wash. June 11, 2014) (“Internet
`articles are independently inadmissible
`hearsay under Rule 801(c).”); Stewart v.
`Wachowski, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1105
`(C.D. Cal. 2005) (same).
`
`Authenticity: Petitioner has not provided
`any evidence that these exhibits are
`authentic under FRE 901. The exhibits do
`not fall within any of the self-authenticating
`exceptions of FRE 902.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibits are hearsay under
`FRE 801-802. They do not fall within any
`of the exceptions of FRE 803.
`
`Authenticity: Petitioner has not provided
`any evidence that these exhibits are
`authentic under FRE 901. The exhibits do
`not fall within any of the self-authenticating
`exceptions of FRE 902.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibits are hearsay under
`FRE 801-802. They do not fall within any
`of the exceptions of FRE 803.
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Objections to Evidence
`IPR2016-01470
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Exs. 1021-1030 (ADSL Forum
`technical reports)
`
`
`Exs. 1031, 1039 (PowerPoint
`presentations)
`
`Ex. 1038 (document titled “Mixed
`Signal Circuits and Systems”)
`
`
`
`
`
`Authenticity: Petitioner has not provided
`any evidence that this exhibit is authentic
`under FRE 901. The exhibit does not fall
`within any of the self-authenticating
`exceptions of FRE 902. See, e.g., Adobe
`Sys. v. Christenson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`16977, *26 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011) (“Courts
`do not treat printouts from internet websites
`as self-authenticating or admit them without
`foundation or authentication.”); In re
`Homestore.com., Inc. v. Securities
`Litigation, 347 F.Supp.2d 769, 782-783
`(C.D. Cal. 2004 (“Printouts from a web site
`do not bear the indicia of reliability
`demanded for other self-authenticating
`documents under Fed.R.Evid. 902. To be
`authenticated, some statement or affidavit
`from someone with knowledge is required;
`for example, Homestore's web master or
`someone else with personal knowledge
`would be sufficient.”)
`
`Hearsay: The exhibit is hearsay under FRE
`801-802. It does not fall within any of the
`exceptions of FRE 803. See United States v.
`Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2000)
`(web postings from the Internet were
`inadmissible hearsay); St. Clair v. Johnny's
`Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 2d 773,
`775 (S.D. Texas 1999) (“Any evidence
`procured off the Internet is adequate for
`almost nothing, even under the most liberal
`interpretations of the hearsay exception
`rules.”).
`
`Authenticity: Petitioner has not provided
`any evidence that these exhibits are
`authentic under FRE 901. The exhibits do
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Objections to Evidence
`IPR2016-01470
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`Ex. 1033 (website printout from
`kitz.co.uk)
`
`Exs. 1041-42, 1046, 1051
`(miscellaneous website printouts)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1043 (document purporting to
`be ETSI TS 102 250-2 V2.5.1
`Technical Specification)
`
`
`
`not fall within any of the self-authenticating
`exceptions of FRE 902.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibits are hearsay under
`FRE 801-802. They do not fall within any
`of the exceptions of FRE 803. See United
`States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637 (7th
`Cir. 2000) (web postings from the Internet
`were inadmissible hearsay); St. Clair v.
`Johnny's Oyster & Shrimp, Inc., 76 F. Supp.
`2d 773, 775 (S.D. Texas 1999) (“Any
`evidence procured off the Internet is
`adequate for almost nothing, even under the
`most liberal interpretations of the hearsay
`exception rules.”).
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections to Evidence
`IPR2016-01470
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`Ex. 1047 (document purporting to
`be a white paper)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`
`
`Dated: February 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections to Evidence
`IPR2016-01470
`U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence was served on February 24, 2017, via email to
`
`counsel for Petitioners at the following:
`
`
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Stephen McBride
`Jennifer Volk
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel. 650-843-5001
`Fax 650-849-7400
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`smcbride@cooley.com
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Telephone: 312-775-8000
`
`
`Facsimile: 312-775-8100
`
`
`
`CUSTOMER NUMBER: 23446
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
