`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP., and
`CAVIUM, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-013921
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01728, has been joined as
`a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner, Alacritech, Inc. hereby
`
`makes the following objections to the admissibility of documents submitted with
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition.
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Ex. 1201 (website:
`https://web.archive.org
`/web/19970622102719
`/http://www.alteon.com
`/index.html “Archived
`version of the Alteon home
`page”)
`
`Ex. 1202 (website:
`https://web.archive.org
`/web/19970622102647
`/http://www.alteon.com:
`80/presintr.html)
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Ex. 1203 (website:
`https://web.archive.org/
`web/19970622102901/
`http://www.alteon.com:
`80/techbr01.html)
`
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Ex. 1204 (website:
`https://web.archive.org/
`web/19970622103538/
`http://www.alteon.com:
`80/whitpapr.pdf)
`
`Ex. 1205 (Request for
`Comments (RFC) 2026)
`
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`
`Ex. 1206 (Website:
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/search/rfc_
`search_detail.php?rfc
`=929&pubstatus%5B%5D
`=Any&pub_date_type=any)
`
`Ex. 1207 (Website:
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/search/rfc_
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`search_detail.php?rfc=793&
`pubstatus%5B%5D=
`Any&pub_date_type=any)
`
`Ex. 1210 (Declaration of
`Robert Horst, Ph. D. In
`Support of Petitioner’s
`Response in Opposition to
`Patent Owner’s Contingent
`Motion to Amend (April 4,
`2018))
`
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it
`includes arguments that are outside the scope of the
`Opposition. Admissibility of such declaration would
`permit the use of declarations to circumvent the page
`limits that apply to oppositions.
`
`FRE 702: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit to the
`extent it is irrelevant, not based on a reliable
`foundation, and constitutes conclusory opinions
`without sufficient support. For example, it provides
`no basis or evidence that:
`
`
`“Alteon Networks and its website were well
`known to those interested in the relevant art.”
`
`“The ‘normal streams … device driver’ in this
`quote, would be understood by a POSA, to
`refer to a traditional host protocol stack;”
`
`“A POSA would have understood that these
`mailboxes would be located in different places
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`in memory”;
`
`“Two obvious ways to complete the UDP
`datagram would be to prepend the header to
`the user data or to append the data to the
`header because the header is in the front (or
`ahead) of the data. Both would have been
`obvious and within the abilities of a POSA.
`Thus it would have been obvious to a POSA
`to implement the system disclosed in Erickson
`such that the header created from the template
`702 was prepended to the user data to create
`the completed UDP datagram 702
`(“packet”);”
`
`“Importantly, the header template includes the
`MAC, network, and transport layer headers.
`Because, as shown in the figure, the template,
`when filled in, would comprise these three
`types of headers, the headers would be
`prepended “at one time” as required by the
`claim. At the very least, it would have been
`obvious to a POSA that since all three headers
`would be completed at the same time, then
`they would be then added in front of the data
`at one time”;
`
`“A POSA would have understood that the
`onboard processor of Alteon would contain a
`sequencer. A microcode sequencer was well
`known in the art since the 1970s”;
`
`“It would also be obvious to create the
`following TCP script for Erickson. This
`alternative script builds on the single segment
`script, but spanks the GO bit only once for a
`multi-segment send. As Erickson assumes, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`user data length is within in single page.
`Ex.1005, Erickson at 8:22-24. The script
`would DMA one segment of data at a time
`from the block identified by the user data
`address pointer and length passed to the script.
`Alternatively, the adapter could DMA all of
`the data in one large transfer and transmit one
`segment at a time. The segmentation code is
`within the skills of a person of ordinary skill
`in the art in light of the disclosures by
`Tanenbaum”;
`
`“It would have also been obvious to create
`this third TCP script. Like the second
`alternative script, this third alternative script
`builds on the single segment script, but spanks
`the GO bit only once for a multi-segment
`send. Instead of transferring one segment of
`user data at a time, the adapter would DMA
`all of the user data in one large transfer
`identified by the address pointer and length.
`The adapter would then repeatedly extract one
`segment of data at a time, place it into a
`packet, and transmit. This segmentation code
`is within the skills of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art in light of the disclosures by
`Tanenbaum: A TCP entity accepts user data
`streams from local processes, breaks them up
`into pieces not exceeding 64K bytes (in
`practice, usually about 1500 bytes), and sends
`each piece as a separate IP datagram”;
`
`“A POSA would have recognized that to
`execute a script, which is in memory at the
`I/O device, the I/O device includes a
`processor. While Erickson does not explicitly
`discuss processors, a POSA would have
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`understood the ability to run scripts means
`that there must be a processor”;
`
`“Because the I/O device adapter disclosed
`creates the packet header from a single
`template containing the media access control
`layer header, the network layer header and the
`transport layer header as a sequence of bits, it
`would have been obvious to prepend the
`header to the user data at one time as a
`sequence of bits”;
`
`“A POSA would have understood that the
`purpose of DMA would be to minimize the
`burden on the host processor, which can
`include the avoidance of interrupts”;
`
`“Because the upper layer processing, occurs
`before the TCP or transport layer processing
`when transmitting, a POSA would have
`understood that the upper layer header would
`be prepended prior to any dividing as part of
`the TCP layer processing”;
`
`“In order to achieve this (sending and
`receiving traffic at the same time), a POSA
`would have understood the processing of the
`inbound packets would occur while
`prepending the outbound packet headers to
`each of the segments.”
`
`
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner objects to this declaration
`to the extent it includes inadmissible hearsay that
`does not fall within the scope of any hearsay
`exception under FRE 803, e.g., in Paragraphs 15, 19,
`21-32, and pages A-52, A-53, and A-54.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Ex. 1215 (Second Affidavit
`of Christopher Butler
`(March 16, 2018))
`
`Ex. 1217 (The Memory-
`Integrated Network
`Interface by Ron Minnich,
`et al. (February 1995))
`
`Ex. 1219 (Budding Alteon
`to Offer Gigabit Ethernet
`
`
`FRE 602: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner does not introduce evidence of
`declarant’s personal knowledge of the subject matter
`of the testimony contained therein.
`
`FRE 701 and FRE 702: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit because it includes opinion testimony of
`lay witness without meeting the requirement of FRE
`701 and Petitioner fails to establish the witness as an
`expert under FRE 702.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 801.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Switch, InfoWorld, (August
`26, 1996))
`
`Ex. 1220 (IBM, Alteon
`Strike Gigabit Ethernet
`deal, InfoWorld (May 12,
`1997))
`
`
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant, as it is not used as a
`reference in any of the instituted grounds, and is not
`referenced in any of the briefs.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Petitioner has failed to establish that this
`exhibit is what Petitioner claims it is, and has failed
`to authenticate this exhibit.
`
`Ex. 1221 (Internet pages
`directed to Technical Brief
`on Alteon Ethernet Gigabit
`NIC (Printed Mar. 15,
`1997))
`
`
`Ex. 1222 (The design of
`Nectar : a network
`backplane for
`heterogeneous
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`multicomputers by E.
`Arnould, et al. (1989))
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit
`because it is hearsay under FRE 801 and does not
`fall within the hearsay exceptions under FRE 803.
`To the extent that Petitioner attempts to rely on any
`date that appears on this exhibit to establish public
`accessibility, the date is hearsay under FRE 801 and
`does not fall within the hearsay exceptions under
`FRE 803.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`publicly available before the priority date of the
`patent at issue.
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certify that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE was served on April 11,
`
`2018 by filing it through the Patent Review Processing System, as well as by e-
`
`
`
`mailing copies to:
`
`Garland T. Stephens (Reg. No. 37,242)
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`intel.alacritech.ipr@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 1700
`HOUSTON, TX 77002-2784
`
`Anne M. Cappella (Reg. No. 43,217)
`Adrian Percer (Reg. No. 46,986)
`Jeremy Jason Lang (Reg. No. 73,604)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3141
`Fax: (650) 802-3100
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`Patrick McPherson (Reg. No. 46,255)
`David T. Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`DTXue@duanemorris.com
`karinehk@duanemorris.com
`
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
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
