Filed: December 11, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENTS SERVED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Intel Corporation, hereby makes
`
`the following objections to the admissibility of documents submitted with Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Objections
`Ex. 2001 lacks any acknowledgement by Dr. Prucnal that
`willful false statements are punishable by fine, imprisonment,
`or both, or that the statements are true under penalty of
`perjury. To the extent that the Board does not give weight to
`declarations or affidavits without such an acknowledgement
`(pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 1.68 or 28 U.S.C. § 1746), it should
`also not consider Ex. 2001. See Intel Corporation v.
`Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01402, Paper 8 at 6 (Nov. 6, 2017).
`
`FRE 702: Intel objection to Ex. 2001 as being improper
`expert testimony. For example, Patent Owner uses Ex. 2001
`to support its assertion that Alteon was not publicly
`accessible. POPR, Paper 10 at 42. However, Dr. Prucnal in
`Ex. 2001 notes that he “did not perform this investigation.”
`Ex. 2001 at ¶ 97, p. 39 n.4. Thus, this testimony is not based
`on sufficient facts or data.
`
`FRE 801, 802: Intel objects to Ex. 2001 as inadmissible
`hearsay. Patent Owner uses Ex. 2001 to support its contention
`that the claims of the ’241 Patent are not obvious in view of
`Erickson, Tanenbaum, and Alteon, that Alteon is allegedly
`not prior art, and to provide general characterizations of the
`prior art and the ’241 Patent. Because Ex. 2001 is an out of
`court statement offered for its truth, and does not fall within
`any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is inadmissible
`hearsay. Also, Ex. 2001 purports to quote Ex. 2004 and Ex.
`2006 which are also inadmissible hearsay. Thus, Ex. 2001
`contains hearsay within hearsay and no part of the combined
`statements conforms with an exception to the rule against
`
`1
`
`

`

`Exhibit 2004
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`hearsay.
`FRE 401, 402: Intel objects to Ex. 2004 as lacking relevance
`given the January 21, 2005 date in the header of the
`document. January 21, 2005 is well after the filing date of the
`application that resulted in the ’241 Patent, September 27,
`2002, and the date to which Patent Owner claims priority,
`October 14, 1997.
`FRE 801, 802: Intel objects to Ex. 2004 as inadmissible
`hearsay. Patent Owner uses Ex. 2004 to show how one of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “interrupt.”
`The document’s authors are not under oath and are not subject
`to cross-examination in this proceeding. Because Ex. 2004 is
`an out of court statement offered for its truth, and does not fall
`within any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is
`inadmissible hearsay.
`FRE 901: Ex. 2004 is an unauthenticated document and is not
`self-authenticating under FRE 902. Thus, Ex. 2004 lacks
`authentication.
`FRE: 401, 402: Intel objects to Ex. 2006 as lacking
`relevance. Ex. 2006 appears to be a web page rendering from
`archive.org. In the declaration submitted in support of Patent
`Owner’s preliminary response, Dr. Prucnal suggests that this
`is evidence that Alteon was not publicly available, but notes
`that he “did not perform this investigation.” Ex. 2001 at ¶ 97,
`p. 39 n.4. As Ex. 2006 purports to be only a single webpage
`and Dr. Prucnal did not conduct any investigation, Patent
`Owner has not established the relevance of this document.
`FRE: 801, 802: Intel objects to Ex. 2006 as inadmissible
`hearsay. While Patent Owner does not directly cite to Ex.
`2006, a representation of this exhibit appears in the
`Declaration of Dr. Prucnal in support of its response (Ex.
`2001). Dr. Prucnal suggests that this is evidence that Alteon
`was not publicly available, but notes that he “did not perform
`this investigation.” Ex. 2001 at ¶ 97, p. 39 n.4. The
`document’s authors are not under oath and are not subject to
`cross-examination in this proceeding. Because Ex. 2006 is an
`out of court statement offered for its truth, and does not fall
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`within any exception to the rule against hearsay, it is
`inadmissible hearsay.
`FRE 901: Ex. 2006 is an unauthenticated document and is not
`self-authenticating under FRE 902. Thus, Ex. 2006 lacks
`authentication.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Dated: December 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01392
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Garland T. Stephens
`Garland T. Stephens, Reg. No. 37,242
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (713) 546-5000
`Fax: (713) 224-9511
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Intel Corporation
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 11, 2017, a copy of PETITIONER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE was served by filing this
`
`document through the PTAB’s E2E Filing System as well as delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail upon the following:
`
`James M. Glass
`Registration No. 46,729
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Ave., 22nd Fl.
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-7000
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Registration No. 59,033
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel.: (213) 443-3000
`Email: joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Brian E. Mack
`Registration No. 57,189
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Fl.
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 875-6600
`Email: brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Mark Lauer
`Registration No. 36,578
`Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
`7901 Stoneridge Dr., Ste. 528
`Pleasanton, CA 94588
`Tel.: (925) 621-2121
`Email: mark@siliconedgelaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: December 11, 2017
`
`/s/ Garland T. Stephens
`Garland T. Stephens
`Reg. No. 37,242
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`