`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01254
`U.S. Patent No. 8,479,969 B2
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED BY PETITIONER INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. IN INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner Ethicon LLC, hereby objects
`
`as follows to the admissibility of evidence filed by Petitioner Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
`
`in Inter Partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,479,969 (IPR2018-01254).
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be
`
`for a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of paragraphs 28-144 to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing
`
`the issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 30-33, 37, 39, 40, 43-
`
`46-48, 50-55, 68, 71, 73-82, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97,
`
`100-103, 105-117, 119-122, 124, 126, 127, 129-140, 142-
`
`144, the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has
`
`not been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has
`
`personal knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 26-34 and 37, 39-40, and 43-144, the exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand, to opine on
`
`patent claim limitations, to perform claim construction,
`
`and/or to perform legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion
`
`testimony offered in this exhibit is not based on scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge, and is also not
`
`based on personal knowledge. The opinion testimony
`
`includes unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate,
`
`unqualified generalizations. The opinion testimony fails to
`
`properly disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
`
`opinion is based. The opinion testimony includes
`
`testimony on United States patent law and/or patent
`
`examination practice.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter
`
`allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`Exhibit 1005,
`Appendix A
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed
`
`by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: Portions of this exhibit contain inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter
`
`allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: The exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`FRE 901: Petitioner has not produced evidence sufficient
`
`to support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner
`
`claims it is.
`
`FRE 1006: Portions of the exhibit constitute an
`
`inadmissible summary with underlying documents not
`
`made available.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 30, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth S. Weiswasser/
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser (Reg No. 55,721)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8000
`
`Adrian Percer (Reg. No. 46,986)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`T: 650-802-3141
`
`Christopher T. Marando (Reg. No. 67,898)
`Christopher M. Pepe (Reg. No. 73,851)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`T: 202-682-7000
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 30, 2019, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED BY PETITIONER INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. IN INTER
`
`PARTES REVIEW 8,479,969 (IPR2018-01254) was served via electronic mail,
`
`upon the following:
`
` Steven R. Katz
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`katz@fr.com
`
`John C. Phillips
`Ryan P. O’Connor
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`phillips@fr.com
`oconnor@fr.com
`
`IPR11030-0049IPA@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ a
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`