`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PFIZER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01488
`Patent 6,407,213
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the admissibility of
`
`evidence as follows:
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`2001
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 106: To the extent this exhibit introduces only part of a
`
`writing, fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`
`1 References to “FRE” are to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2002
`
`FRE 106: To the extent this exhibit introduces only part of
`
`a writing, fairness requires the introduction of the remainder
`
`of the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2003
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2004
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2005
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2006
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2007
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2008
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2009
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2010
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902. For example, Patent Owner has named the exhibit
`
`“Genentech, Inc. Interoffice Memorandum from Paul Carter
`
`to Leonard Presta and Dennis Henner,” (Paper 7 at 70) but
`
`the exhibit does not show the author or any recipients of the
`
`exhibit.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2011
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2012
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2013
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2014
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902. For example, the exhibit does not show the author,
`
`creation date, or any recipients of the exhibit.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2015
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate. For
`
`example, handwritten notes appear on page 3 of the exhibit.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2016
`
`FRE 106: The testimony relies on improper exhibits that
`
`introduce only part of a writing where fairness requires the
`
`introduction of the remainder of the writing. See, e.g., ¶¶ 11,
`
`27–30, 32, 34–36, 38, 39, 41–48.
`
`FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has failed to identify any fact
`
`of consequence in determining an issue in this proceeding
`
`that is made more or less probable by this testimony; the
`
`testimony is thus not relevant.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of the testimony is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 602: The declarant lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge to testify on the asserted subject matter. See,
`
`e.g., ¶¶ 5, 10, 16–18, 21, 49–53.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 702: The declarant is not qualified as an expert on the
`
`subject matter of his declaration, and thus cannot testify in
`
`the form of an opinion or otherwise in a manner that would
`
`assist the Board. The testimony is based on insufficient facts
`
`or data, the product of unreliable principles or methods,
`
`and/or an unreliable application of the principles or methods
`
`to the facts of this case.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner has not established that an expert in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on the kinds of
`
`facts or data relied upon in forming an opinion on the
`
`subject. The probative value of the testimony is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 705/37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The testimony lacks a
`
`disclosed basis of sufficient facts or data.
`
`FRE 801/802: The testimony relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter asserted therein, and does not
`
`fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 805: The testimony relies on hearsay within hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`FRE 901/902: The testimony relies on improper exhibits for
`
`which Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims they are. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that these exhibits are self-authenticating under
`
`FRE 902. See, e.g., ¶¶ 11, 12, 27–30, 32, 34–36, 38, 39, 41–
`
`49.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: The testimony relies on evidence that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown is the original document or an
`
`authentic duplicate. See, e.g., ¶¶ 11, 12, 27–30, 32, 34–36,
`
`38, 39, 41–49.
`
`Lack of Foundation: The declarant does not provide
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2017
`
`FRE 106: The testimony relies on improper exhibits that
`
`introduce only part of a writing where fairness requires the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`introduction of the remainder of the writing. See, e.g., ¶¶ 53,
`
`55, 64, 78.
`
`FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has failed to identify any fact
`
`of consequence in determining an issue in this proceeding
`
`that is made more or less probable by this testimony; the
`
`testimony is thus not relevant.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of the testimony is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 602: The declarant lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge to testify on the asserted subject matter. See, e.g.,
`
`¶¶ 4, 10, 11, 14–17, 19, 22, 34, 40, 53–58, 63–67, 72, 75, 78,
`
`79.
`
`FRE 702: The declarant is not qualified as an expert on the
`
`subject matter of his declaration, and thus cannot testify in
`
`the form of an opinion or otherwise in a manner that would
`
`assist the Board. The testimony is based on insufficient facts
`
`or data, the product of unreliable principles or methods,
`
`and/or an unreliable application of the principles or methods
`
`to the facts of this case.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 703: Patent Owner has not established that an expert in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on the kinds of
`
`facts or data relied upon in forming an opinion on the
`
`subject. The probative value of the testimony is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 705/37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The testimony lacks a
`
`disclosed basis of sufficient facts or data.
`
`FRE 801/802: The testimony relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter asserted therein, and does not
`
`fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 805: The testimony relies on hearsay within hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`FRE 901/902: The testimony relies on improper exhibits for
`
`which Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims they are. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that these exhibits are self-authenticating under
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 902. See, e.g., ¶¶ 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34–
`
`39, 41, 43–50, 52–56, 59, 60–65, 68, 70, 72–75, 78.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: The testimony relies on evidence that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown is the original document or an
`
`authentic duplicate. See, e.g., ¶¶ 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28,
`
`29, 32, 34–39, 41, 43–50, 52–56, 59, 60–65, 68, 70, 72–75,
`
`78.
`
`Lack of Foundation: The declarant does not provide
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2018
`
`FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has failed to identify any fact
`
`of consequence in determining an issue in this proceeding
`
`that is made more or less probable by this testimony; the
`
`testimony is thus not relevant.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of the testimony is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 602: The declarant lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge to testify on the asserted subject matter. See,
`
`e.g., ¶¶ 8, 20–24.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 702: The declarant is not qualified as an expert on the
`
`subject matter of his declaration, and thus cannot testify in
`
`the form of an opinion or otherwise in a manner that would
`
`assist the Board. The testimony is based on insufficient facts
`
`or data, the product of unreliable principles or methods,
`
`and/or an unreliable application of the principles or methods
`
`to the facts of this case.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner has not established that an expert in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on the kinds of
`
`facts or data relied upon in forming an opinion on the
`
`subject. The probative value of the testimony is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 705/37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The testimony lacks a
`
`disclosed basis of sufficient facts or data.
`
`FRE 801/802: The testimony relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter asserted therein, and does not
`
`fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 805: The testimony relies on hearsay within hearsay if
`
`offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: The declarant does not provide
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2019
`
`FRE 106: The testimony relies on improper exhibits that
`
`introduce only part of a writing where fairness requires the
`
`introduction of the remainder of the writing. See, e.g., ¶ 4.
`
`FRE 401/402: Patent Owner has failed to identify any fact
`
`of consequence in determining an issue in this proceeding
`
`that is made more or less probable by this testimony; the
`
`testimony is thus not relevant.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of the testimony is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 602: The declarant lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge to testify on the asserted subject matter. See, e.g.,
`
`¶¶ 4–7.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`FRE 801/802: The testimony relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter asserted therein, and does not
`
`fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: The testimony relies on improper exhibits for
`
`which Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims they are. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that these exhibits are self-authenticating under
`
`FRE 902. See, e.g., ¶ 4.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: The testimony relies on evidence that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown is the original document or an
`
`authentic duplicate. See, e.g., ¶ 4.
`
`Lack of Foundation: The declarant does not provide
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2029
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objection(s)1
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2032
`
`FRE 106: The exhibit introduces only part of a writing
`
`where fairness requires the introduction of the remainder of
`
`the writing.
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`Date: December 15, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Amanda Hollis/
`Amanda Hollis (Reg. No. 55,629)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`
`Attorney For Petitioner
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Admissibility Of Evidence for IPR2017-01488
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Objections was
`
`served on December 15, 2017, via electronic service on lead and back up counsel:
`
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com
`
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`
`andrew.danford@wilmerhale.com
`
`kevin.prussia@wilmerhale.com
`
`lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
`
`rebecca.whitfield@wilmerhale.com
`
` /Amanda Hollis/
`Amanda Hollis
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`