`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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., CAVIUM, INC., and
`WISTRON CORPORATION,
`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 Wistron Corporation, which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00329, 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
`
`Ex. 1223 Declaration of
`Robert Horst
`
`
`Ex. 1224 Deposition of
`Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D.,
`Volume 1 (May 03, 2018)
`
`Ex. 1225 Deposition of
`Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D.,
`Volume 2 (May 04, 2018)
`
`Ex. 1227 New ASIC drives
`Alacritech into storage by
`R. Merritt, EE Times
`
`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, e.g., in Paragraphs 24,
`35, 36, 38, 40-43.
`
`FRE 703 and 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 25, 27, 28, 31-34, 39, 44, and footnote 2.
`
`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, e.g., at
`185:2-186:5.
`
`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, e.g., at
`474:17-476:10.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`(January 11, 2011)
`
`Ex. 1228 Internet page from
`Alacritech.com downloaded
`on May 6, 2018
`
`Ex. 1230 Why Are We
`Deprecating Network
`Performance Features? By
`B. Wilson downloaded on
`May 2, 2018
`
`Ex. 1231 Alacritech, Inc.’s
`Answer and Counterclaims
`to Intel Corporation’s
`Complaint in Intervention
`from Alacritech v.
`CenturyLink, et al.,
`16cv693, Eastern District of
`Texas (D.I. 94) (December
`13, 2016)
`Ex. 1232 Alacritech’s First
`Amended and Supplemental
`Patent Initial Disclosures
`from Alacritech v.
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant.
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`CenturyLink, et al.,
`16cv693, Eastern District of
`Texas (February 24, 2017)
`Ex. 1234 Course
`Information for Fall 1997
`“Introduction to Computer
`Communication Networks”
`
`Ex. 1235 Patent Local Rules
`for the Eastern District of
`Texas
`
`Ex. 1240 IETF SNMP
`Working Group Internet
`Draft SNMP
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant.
`
`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 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.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Communications Services
`by Frank J. Kastenholz
`(April 1991)
`
`Ex. 1241 On Systems
`Integration: Tuning the
`Performance of a
`Commercial TCP
`Implementation by D. Leon
`Guerrero and Ophir Frieder
`(1992)
`
`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
`Petitioner fails to establish that this exhibit was
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 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, e.g., at
`474:17-476:10.
`
`
`Ex. 1242 John S.
`Quarterman, Abraham
`Silberschatz, and James L.
`Peterson. 1985. 4.2BSD and
`4.3BSD as examples of the
`UNIX system. ACM
`Comput. Surv. 17, 4
`(December 1985), 379-418
`
`Ex. 1249 Excerpt from
`Report of Alacritech’s
`Expert Dr. Kevin C.
`Almeroth Concerning
`Intel’s Infringement from
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Alacritech v. CenturyLink,
`et al., 16cv693, Eastern
`District of Texas (October
`23, 2017)
`Ex. 1250 Declaration of Dr.
`Kevin C. Almeroth in
`Support of Alacritech’s
`Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction of Microsoft’s
`Infringement of Claim 1 of
`U.S. Patent 6,697,868 from
`Alacritech, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corporation, Northern
`District of California,
`04cv03284 (D.I. 27)
`(November 19, 2004)
`Ex. 1251 Declaration of Dr.
`Kevin C. Almeroth in
`Support of Alacritech’s
`Reply to Microsoft’s
`Opposition to of
`Alacritech’s Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction from
`Alacritech, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corporation, Northern
`District of California,
`04cv03284 (D.I. 73)
`(February 11, 2005)
`
`
`
`Date: May 22, 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.
`
`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.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant.
`
`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.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to
`this exhibit as it is irrelevant.
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 May 22,
`
`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
`
`Benjamin E. Weed (Reg. No. 65,939)
`K&L GATES LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`
`Date: May 22, 2018
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
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
