`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00216
`Patent Number 8,013,732
`________________________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, STACEY G. WHITE, and CHRISTA P. ZADO,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`in a representative capacity for Petitioner Emerson Electric Co. (“Petitioner”),
`
`hereby submits the following objections to Patent Owner SIPCO, LLC’s (“Patent
`
`Owner”) Exhibits as indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon,
`
`without limitation. Petitioner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“F.R.E.”) as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the material filed by
`
`Patent Owner with its Response on August 16, 2017.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Patent Owner in the context of Patent Owner’s August 16,
`
`2017 Response (Paper No. 21, “POR”) and not in the context of any other
`
`substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner expressly objects to any other purported use of these Exhibits, including
`
`as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be untimely and improper
`
`under the applicable rules, and Petitioner expressly asserts, reserves, and does not
`
`waive any other objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`I. Objections to Exhibit 2012 And Any Reference To/Reliance Thereon
`
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 1002 (“Requirement of the Original”); F.R.E. 1003
`
`(“Admissibility of Duplicates”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); F.R.E.
`
`401 (“Test for Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 402 (“General Admissibility of
`
`Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,
`
`Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Petitioner objects to the use of Exhibit 2012 under F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Patent Owner fails to provide the authentication
`
`required for this document, and Exhibit 2012 is not self-authenticating under
`
`F.R.E. 902.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2012 as impermissible hearsay under
`
`F.R.E. 801 and 802 to the extent to which the out-of-court statements therein are
`
`offered for the truth of the matters asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay
`
`for which Patent Owner has not demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the
`
`rule against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802). Accordingly, permitting reliance on this
`
`document in Patent Owner’s Response or other submissions of Patent Owner
`
`would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Petitioner (F.R.E. 403).
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to the use of Exhibit 2012 under F.R.E. 401, 402,
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`and 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Patent Owner has not shown that this
`
`Exhibit represents the state of the art in the time period relevant to the ’732 patent.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2012 under F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61, for failure to show that this Exhibit makes any fact of consequence
`
`in determining this action more or less probable than it would be without this
`
`Exhibit and is thus irrelevant and not admissible (F.R.E. 401, 402); permitting
`
`reference to/reliance on the Exhibit would also be misleading, irrelevant, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial to Petitioner (F.R.E. 402, 403).
`
`II.
`
` Objections to Exhibit 2014 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401 (“Test for Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E.
`
`402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”);
`
`F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witness”); F.R.E. 703 (“Bases of an Expert’s
`
`Opinion Testimony”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2014 under F.R.E. 702 and 703, and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61. The declarant of Exhibit 2014, Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth, fails to provide
`
`sufficient underlying facts or data upon which the statements contained therein
`
`could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702. Dr. Almeroth has also not
`
`“reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” and his
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`opinions in Exhibit 2014 are not “the product of reliable principles and methods,”
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`in violation of F.R.E. 702. Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2014 under F.R.E.
`
`401, 402, and 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, for failure to show that this Exhibit
`
`makes any fact of consequence in determining this action more or less probable
`
`than it would be without the Exhibit and is thus irrelevant and not admissible
`
`(F.R.E. 401, 402); permitting reference to/reliance on the Exhibit would also be
`
`misleading, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial to Petitioner (F.R.E. 402, 403).
`
`III.
`
` Objections to Exhibit 2016 And Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(a) (“Deposition evidence”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8) (Objections in
`
`depositions).
`
`Exhibit 2016 appears to be the deposition transcript of Stephen B. Heppe
`
`taken on August 9, 2017 in this proceeding. Petitioner hereby expressly repeats
`
`and incorporates by reference all of its objections stated on the record during that
`
`deposition, and affirmatively maintains all such objections.
`
`IV.
`
` Objections to Exhibits 2017-2022 And Any Reference to/Reliance
`
`Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401 (“Test for Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E.
`
`402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence”); F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons”);
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Petitioner objects to the use of Exhibits 2017-2022 under F.R.E. 401, 402,
`
`and 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Patent Owner does not cite or rely on these
`
`exhibits in its Patent Owner Response. Petitioner further objects to the use of
`
`Exhibits 2017, 2020, and 2022 under F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403, and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61 as Patent Owner has not shown that these exhibits represent the state of the
`
`art in the time period relevant to the ’732 patent. Petitioner thus objects to Exhibits
`
`2017-2022 under F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61, for failure to
`
`show that these Exhibits make any fact of consequence in determining this action
`
`more or less probable than it would be without these Exhibits and are thus
`
`irrelevant and not admissible (F.R.E. 401, 402); permitting reference to/reliance on
`
`these Exhibits would also be misleading, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioner (F.R.E. 402, 403).
`
`V. Additional Objections to Exhibits 2019 And 2021 And Any Reference
`
`To/Reliance Thereon
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 1002 (“Requirement of the Original”); F.R.E. 1003
`
`(“Admissibility of Duplicates”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Petitioner additionally objects to the use of Exhibits 2019 and 2021 under
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because Patent Owner fails to
`
`provide the authentication required for these documents, and Exhibits 2019 and
`
`2021 are not self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibits 2019 and 2021 as impermissible hearsay
`
`under F.R.E. 801 and 802 to the extent to which the out-of-court statements therein
`
`are offered for the truth of the matters asserted and constitute impermissible
`
`hearsay for which Patent Owner has not demonstrated any exception or exclusion
`
`to the rule against hearsay (F.R.E. 801, 802). Accordingly, permitting reliance on
`
`these documents would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to Petitioner (F.R.E.
`
`403).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Donald L. Jackson
`
`
`Donald L. Jackson (Reg. No. 41,090)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`djackson@dbjg.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00216
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S
`
`RESPONSE was served on August 23, 2017 in its entirety by causing the
`
`aforementioned document to be electronically mailed, pursuant to the parties’
`
`agreement, to the following attorneys of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Reg. No. 43,639
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`Email: Gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Thomas F. Meagher
`Reg. No. 29,831
`Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP
`One Palmer Square, Suite 325
`Princeton, NJ 08542
`Email: tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner SIPCO, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Donald L. Jackson
`Donald L. Jackson
`Registration No. 41,090
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`