`
`Paper No. 11
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01620
`U.S. Patent No. 8,489,868 B2
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner BlackBerry Limited (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Google Inc.’s
`
`(“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, 1016, 1020, 1024, 1028, and 1031-1037,
`
`and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation. Patent Owner’s
`
`objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E”) as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62. These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the materials
`
`submitted by Petitioner with its Petition on June 16, 2017.
`
`The following objections apply to Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, 1016, 1020,
`
`1024, 1028, and 1031-1037 as they are actually presented by Petitioner, in the
`
`context of Petitioner’s June 16, 2017 Petition (Paper 1) and not in the context of
`
`any other substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner expressly objects to any other purported use of these
`
`Exhibits, including as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be
`
`untimely and improper under the applicable rules, and Patent Owner expressly
`
`asserts, reserves and does not waive any other objections that would be applicable
`
`in such a context.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`I.
`
`Objections to Exhibit 1002, and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”);
`
`F.R.E. 403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of
`
`Time, or Other Reasons”); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibit 1002 under F.R.E. 702 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61. Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration of Dr. Patrick D. McDaniel in
`
`support of the Petition. Exhibit 1002 purports to provide expert testimony in this
`
`matter, but fails—in many key respects—to establish the basis for Dr. McDaniel’s
`
`opinions. For example, Dr. McDaniel offers only conclusory statements in support
`
`of his opinions regarding technical features that were purportedly “well known” at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶21-47. Dr. McDaniel also
`
`offers only conclusory statements in support of his opinions that a POSITA would
`
`have understood Lin to inherently satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶132-200. Similarly, Dr. McDaniel offers only conclusory statements in support
`
`of his opinions that it would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine elements
`
`from Garst with Lin so as to satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶201-11.
`
`Likewise, Dr. McDaniel offers only conclusory statements in support of his
`
`opinion that it would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine elements from
`
`Davis with Lin so as to satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶212-218. Dr.
`
`McDaniel also offers only conclusory statements in support of his opinion that it
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine elements from Chang with Lin
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`so as to satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶219-227. Dr. McDaniel
`
`further offers only conclusory statements in support of his opinion that it would
`
`have been obvious for a POSITA to combine elements from Sibert with Lin so as
`
`to satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶228-34. Dr. McDaniel further
`
`offers only conclusory statements in support of his opinion that it would have been
`
`obvious for a POSITA to combine elements from Wong-Insley with Lin so as to
`
`satisfy certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶235-40. Dr. McDaniel further offers
`
`only conclusory statements in support of his opinion that it would have been
`
`obvious for a POSITA to combine elements from Haddock with Lin so as to satisfy
`
`certain claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶241-46. Dr. McDaniel further offers only
`
`conclusory statements in support of his opinion that it would have been obvious for
`
`a POSITA to combine elements from Gong with Lin so as to satisfy certain claims.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶¶241-68.
`
`Such conclusory statements without reference to the underlying basis for Dr.
`
`McDaniel’s opinion is not proper testimony under F.R.E. 702 and should be
`
`excluded. Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in the Petition or
`
`other submissions by Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner (F.R.E. 403).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`II. Objections to Exhibits 1008, 1009, 1016, 1020, 1024, 1028, and 1031-
`1037, and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 1002 (“Requirement of the Original”); F.R.E. 1003
`
`(“Admissibility of Duplicates”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); F.R.E.
`
`403 (“Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or
`
`Other Reasons”); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibits 1008, 1009, 1016, 1020, 1024,
`
`1028, and 1031-1037 under F.R.E. 901, 1002, 1003, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 because
`
`Petitioner fails to provide the authentication required for these documents, and the
`
`Exhibits are not self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1008, 1009, 1016, 1020, 1024,
`
`1028, and 1031-1037 as including impermissible hearsay under F.R.E. 801 and 802
`
`to the extent to which the out of court statements therein are offered for the truth of
`
`the matters asserted and constitute impermissible hearsay for which Petitioner has
`
`not demonstrated any exception or exclusion to the rule against hearsay. For
`
`example, Petitioner relies on the truth of out of court statements made in Exhibits
`
`1016 and 1033-1037 to support its argument that the Gong reference was
`
`“published and publicly available” prior to the priority date of the ’868 patent, but
`
`has not demonstrated that any exception or exclusion to the rule against hearsay
`
`applies. Pet. 4. Accordingly, permitting reliance on this document in the Petition
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`or other submissions by Petitioner would be misleading and unfairly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Patent Owner (F.R.E. 403).
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Ching-Lee Fukuda/
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Reg. No. 44,334
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`P: (212) 839-7364
`F: (212) 839-5599
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01620
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 9th day of
`
`January, 2018, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by
`
`electronic mail on the following counsel:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip Citroën
`John Holley
`PH-Google-BB-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Ching-Lee Fukuda/
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Reg. No. 44,334
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`P: (212) 839-7364
`F: (212) 839-5599
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`i
`
`