`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00082
`Patent 6,088,802
`_____________________
`
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`PETITIONER WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS TO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the Petitioner Western Digital
`
`Corporation (“WD”), hereby objects to the following evidence submitted by Patent
`
`Owner SPEX Technologies, Inc. (“SPEX”) during Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,088,802:
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is objected to as irrelevant under Fed. R. Ev. 402 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62; the exhibit and its contents are not cited or discussed in the
`
`patent, file history, or instituted references; the exhibit discusses subject
`
`matter unrelated to this inter partes review; and the exhibit is dated many
`
`years after the priority date of the patent. In addition, the discussion of
`
`alleged infringement by accused products is irrelevant to these proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is further objected to as unfairly prejudicial, confusing the
`
`issues, misleading, and a waste of time under Fed. R. Ev. 403; the exhibit
`
`and its contents reflect Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement against
`
`specific products. Reliance on irrelevant discussions of products accused of
`
`infringement is misleading, a waste of time and risks confusing the issues in
`
`this proceeding. Moreover, Patent Owner’s allegation of infringement is not
`
`only unproven, but also incorrect. For that reason, the exhibit is also
`
`misleading and unfairly prejudicial.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is further objected to as hearsay under Fed. R. Ev. 801 and 802
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 because it is an out of court statement used for the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`truth of the matter asserted; the exhibit contains unsworn representations
`
`from Patent Owner regarding products accused of infringement.
`
`These objections have been timely made and served within 10 business days
`
`from the April 25, 2018 Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DATED: May 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125) (lead)
`Blair A. Silver (Reg. No. 68,003) (back-up)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Western Digital
`Corp.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) of a copy
`
`of this Objections to Evidence by electronic mail on May 9, 2018, on the counsel
`
`of record of the Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter Lambrianakos, plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant, afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III, vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`Enrique W. Iturralde, eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`DATED: May 9, 2018
`
`By: /s/ Brian M. Buroker
`
`
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Western Digital Corp..
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
