`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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 IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01707, has been joined as
`a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 1205 (Request for
`Comments (RFC) 2026)
`
`Exhibit 1206 (Website:
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/search/rfc_
`search_detail.php?rfc
`=929&pubstatus%5B%5D
`=Any&pub_date_type=any)
`
`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. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`Exhibit 1207 (Website:
`https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/search/rfc_
`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,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`2018))
`
`
`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:
`
`
`“The pre-negotiated transport layer header
`above refers to a UDP header, but a POSA
`would have understood that a TCP script
`includes the corresponding TCP header
`information, including TCP state
`information”;
`
`“A POSA would have understood that TCP
`and UDP were designed to send large
`amounts of user data in one or more packets,
`and that Erickson’s UDP script could be used
`to send large blocks of data in multiple UDP
`datagrams by simply advancing the start
`pointer before spanking the GO register
`again”;
`
`“Two obvious ways to complete the UDP
`datagram would be to prepend the header to
`the user data or to append the user data to the
`headers. Both would have been obvious and
`within the abilities of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Thus it would have been
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`implement the system disclosed in Erickson
`by ‘prepending the headers to the segments to
`form transmit packets’”;
`
`“one of ordinary skill would have understood
`how to modify Erickson’s UDP template
`header shown in Figure 7 of Erickson to use
`the TCP prototype header disclosed at p.566
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`of Tanenbaum96”;
`
`“A POSA would have been motivated to
`consider Tanenbaum96’s teaching to
`implement the TCP/IP connection on
`Erickson’s I/O device. Unlike UDP, TCP
`requires establishing a connection before
`sending a data packet”;
`
`“A POSA would have understood that in the
`combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96,
`incrementing the sequence number (updating
`the context) is done or could be done by the
`I/O adapter (interface device). In particular,
`the third obvious TCP scripts for Erickson has
`the segmentation completely handled by the
`I/O device. In this script, each time a new
`segment is sent, the sequence number is
`incremented by the I/O device”;
`
`“A POSA would have understood that a TCP
`script for Erickson would also cause the
`transmission of packets on a network.”
`
`
`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 11, 12,
`and 13.
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
