Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`Case IPR2018-002341
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium LLC (formerly Cavium, Inc.), which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-
`00403, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-01307, have been
`joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`Case IPR2018-002341
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium LLC (formerly Cavium, Inc.), which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-
`00403, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-01307, have been
`joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`Evidence
`Ex. 1227 (New
`ASIC drives
`Alacritech into
`storage by R.
`Merritt, EE Times
`(January 11,
`2011))
`
`Ex. 1228 (Internet
`page from
`Alacritech.com
`downloaded on
`May 6, 2018)
`
`Ex. 1230 (Why
`
`
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because it is not relied on as a reference and is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`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 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because it is not relied on as a reference and is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`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 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`Evidence
`Are We
`Deprecating
`Network
`Performance
`Features? By B.
`Wilson
`downloaded on
`May 2, 2018)
`
`
`Ex. 1399 (Horst
`Declaration)
`
`
`Objections
`because it is not relied on as a reference and is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`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.
`
`Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because it includes
`information that is not discussed sufficiently in the Petition.
`Admissibility of such declaration would permit the use of
`declarations to circumvent the page limits that apply to
`petitions.
`
`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.
`For example, it provides no basis or evidence that:
`
`
`“A POSA would know that a gate-level design can be
`fabricated into a chip using well-known software tools
`and chip fabrication facilities. A POSA would have
`understood the teachings of Thia without the need for
`Thia to create a final chip.”
`
`“A POSA would also have known that the predictable
`template must filter out packets that would require
`processing not handled by the bypass stack, which
`would be processed normally.”
`
`“Given the years of experience that a POSA would
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 1414
`(Declaration of
`Garland T.
`Stephens)
`
`Objections
`have had in networking protocols and computer
`networking, a POSA certainly would have understood
`Thia’s teachings and been able to implement them.”
`
`“A POSA would understand that checking the
`characteristics of a packet is not limited to checking the
`characteristics of, or processing, the network layer
`header, and the claims do not require that the network
`layer be checked to examine the characteristics of a
`packet.”
`
`
`FRE 801: Patent Owner also objects to this exhibit because it
`includes hearsay under FRE 801 by citing Dr. Lin’s
`declaration, and does not fall within the hearsay exceptions
`under FRE 803.
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because it is irrelevant, and its probative value is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`issues, wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence.
`
`FRE 501 and FRE 502: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because Intel asserts privilege over the subject matter at issue
`and in the meantime puts the privileged information at issue.
`To the extent Intel asserts privilege with regard to the subject
`matter at issue, this Declaration is not admissible.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`Evidence
`Ex. 1419
`(Declaration of
`Karineh
`Khachatourian in
`Support of
`Cavium LLC’s
`Opposition to
`Alacritech, Inc.’s
`Motion for
`Additional
`Discovery from
`Case No.
`IPR2018-00401)
`
`Ex. 1420 (Article:
`Fragmentation
`Considered
`Harmful by C.
`Kent and J. Mogul
`(October, 1987))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because it is not relied on as a reference and is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit because
`Petitioner does not introduce evidence of declarant’s personal
`knowledge of the subject matter of the testimony contained
`therein.
`
`
`FRE 401, 402, and 403: Patent Owner objects to this exhibit
`because it is not relied on as a reference and is irrelevant, and
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, and
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`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 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.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`
`Date: January 18, 2019
`
` 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
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`
`
`
`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 January 18,
`
`2019 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
`
`David T. Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`RIMÔN LAW
`david.xue@rimonlaw.com
`karinehk@rimonlaw.com
`
`Christopher Douglas
`Kirk Bradley
`Derek Neilson
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`kirk.bradley@alston.com
`derek.neilson@alston.com
`
`
`Date: January 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`
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
