`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
`
`