`
`Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Andrew B. Karp
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`Case IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`_____________
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner files the following
`
`objections to evidence that Petitioners submitted with their Reply. A chart listing
`
`Patent Owner’s objections and its basis for the objections is provided below.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1031
`(Microsoft Press
`Computer Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1032
`(Focal Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1033
`(Webster’s Dictionary)
`
`Ex. 1034
`(Computer Desktop
`Encyclopedia)
`
`Objection
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1035 (Second
`Declaration of
`Zygmunt Haas)—all
`uncited portions
`
`Ex. 1035 (Second
`Declaration of
`Zygmunt Haas)—
`beyond the allowable
`scope
`
`Objection
`Relevance: All portions of Ex. 1035 that are not relied on
`by the Reply are not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`These sections of Ex. 1035 are beyond the proper scope
`of a reply declaration. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). This is
`evidenced by the following non-limiting examples:
` ¶¶ 11–21 (new theories regarding “packet,” “packet
`switching,” “virtual circuits,” “ATM cells,”
`“datagram,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 22–33 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “packet,” “packet-switching,”
`“circuit-centric,” “virtual circuits,” “ATM cells,”
`“datagram,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 34–42 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “data packets,” “ATM,”
`“segmentation,” “IP-over-ATM,” etc.)
` ¶¶ 43–50 (new theories regarding claim
`construction, “IP-over-ATM,” “segmentation,” the
`provisional application to the ’629 patent, etc.)
` ¶¶ 59–60 (new theory regarding the availability of
`Dyson)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1038 (Newton’s
`Telecom Dictionary)
`
`Objection
`Relevance: This exhibit is not relied on by the Reply, and
`therefore not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1040 (MILCOM
`’97 Proceedings,
`Technical Sessions)
`
`Objection
`Relevance: This exhibit is not relied on by the Reply, and
`therefore not relevant under FRE 402. See, e.g., 35
`U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(3), (4); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4), (5);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper
`12 (Aug. 29, 2014) (informative).
`
`Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, Delay, and Waste of Time:
`To the extent that the uncited portions of Ex. 1035 have
`any other relevance to the Reply, that relevance was not
`raised by the Reply, and any argument for raising it now
`would result in unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, and
`wasted time. See FRE 403.
`
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`Hearsay: The exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay,
`and no hearsay exception applies. See FRE 801-807.
`Additionally, Petitioner has provided no admissible
`evidence establishing the date of publication.
`
`Authenticity: The exhibit is not authenticated as required
`by FRE 901 and is not self-authenticating.
`
`Ex. 1041 (ISDN: An
`Introduction by
`William Stallings)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`Dated: April 26, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Office: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence was served on April 26, 2019 via email to
`
`counsel for Petitioners at the following:
`
`Ericsson_629IPR@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`