Filed on behalf of:
`Google LLC
`
`Paper 10
`Date: March 23, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC1,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`_________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 As indicated in the Petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, Petitioner Google Inc.
`is now Google LLC.
`
`
`Google LLC
`
`Paper 10
`Date: March 23, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC1,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALEX IS THE BEST, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`_________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 As indicated in the Petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, Petitioner Google Inc.
`is now Google LLC.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Google LLC (hereinafter,
`
`“Google”) respectfully submits the following objections:
`
`Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to
`
`the attorney arguments and accompanying discussions contained therein (Paper 7,
`
`pp. 1-33), as they lack relevance and are, therefore, inadmissible. Such arguments
`
`and their accompanying discussions lack relevance because they do not make any
`
`fact of consequence more or less probable. FED. R. EVID. 401, 402. Google
`
`further objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to the
`
`attorney arguments and accompanying discussions contained therein (Paper 7, pp.
`
`1-33), because their probative value, if any, is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, and/or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. FED. R.
`
`EVID. 403. Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and
`
`particularly to the attorney arguments and accompanying discussions contained
`
`therein (Paper 7, pp. 1-33), as essentially attorney testimony by a witness lacking
`
`competency, personal knowledge, and/or as improper opinion testimony by a lay
`
`witness. FED. R. EVID. 601, 602, 701.
`
`Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to
`
`the statements therein regarding the USPTO’s consideration of prior art reference
`
`Kusaka (US 2004/0109063) (Paper 7, pp. 9-10, 19-20, 26), and to Exhibit 2001 in
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`
`its entirety (Ex. 2001, pp. 1-75), because they lack relevance and are, therefore,
`
`inadmissible. Such statements and Exhibit 2001 lack relevance because each item
`
`does not make any fact of consequence more or less probable. FED. R. EVID.
`
`401, 402. Google further objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and
`
`particularly to the statements therein regarding the USPTO’s consideration of prior
`
`art reference Kusaka (US 2004/0109063) (Paper 7, pp. 9-10, 19-20, 26), and to
`
`Exhibit 2001 in its entirety, (Ex. 2001, pp. 1-75), because the probative value of
`
`each item, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, and/or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to
`
`the statements regarding the network connection of prior art reference Inoue (US
`
`2004/0109066), prior art reference Nicholas (US 2004/0133668) in relation to
`
`personal computers or the like, any/all discussion of simultaneous presence of
`
`multiple networks, and the accompanying discussions contained therein (Paper 7,
`
`pp. 1-3 and 8-33), as lacking relevance because they do not make any fact of
`
`consequence more or less probable. FED. R. EVID. 401, 402. Google objects to
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to the statements regarding
`
`the network connection of prior art reference Inoue (US 2004/0109066), prior art
`
`reference Nicholas in relation to personal computers or the like, any/all discussion
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`
`of simultaneous presence of multiple networks, and the accompanying discussions
`
`contained therein (Paper 7, pp. 1-3 and 8-33), because their probative value, if any,
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, and/or wasting time. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to
`
`the statements regarding the status of patent rights, for example, those concerning
`
`constitutionality of inter partes review, and accompanying discussions contained
`
`therein (Paper 7, pp. 1, 3-4), as lacking relevance because they do not make any
`
`fact of consequence more or less probable. FED. R. EVID. 401, 402. Inter partes
`
`review is available for all qualified patents and does not consider issues of validity
`
`or cancellation, but rather of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Google objects
`
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to the statements
`
`regarding the status of patent rights and accompanying discussions contained
`
`therein (Paper 7, pp. 1, 3-4), because their probative value, if any, is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of one or more of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, and/or wasting time. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`Google objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to
`
`the statements regarding effective filing dates and accompanying discussions
`
`contained therein (Paper 7, pp. 4-5), as lacking relevance because they do not make
`
`any fact of consequence more or less probable. FED. R. EVID. 401, 402. Google
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`
`objects to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and particularly to the statements
`
`regarding the status of effective filing dates and accompanying discussions
`
`contained therein (Paper 7, pp. 4-5), because their probative value, if any, is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, and/or wasting time. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Joshua P. Larsen /
`Joshua P. Larsen
`Reg. 62,761
`BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
`11 South Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`(317) 231-1313
`joshua.larsen@btlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,134,600
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02056
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on this 23rd
`
`day of March 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS to be served on Patent Owner via electronic
`
`mail at the following addresses of record:
`
`aim@imiplaw.com
`docket@imiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Joshua P. Larsen /
`Joshua P. Larsen
`Reg. 62,761
`BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
`11 South Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`(317) 231-1313
`joshua.larsen@btlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
