`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-01257
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner Google LLC respectfully submits these five objections to Exhibit
`
`2018 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`Exhibit
`
`Objections
`
`2018
`
`FRE 802 – The exhibit is an unsworn statement by an unknown
`
`person that makes certain assertions as statements of fact, and is
`
`not subject to any exceptions to the hearsay rule.
`
`
`
`FRE 901 – On the telephone conference of July 26, 2019,
`
`CyWee indicated its intent to rely on Ex. 2018 as “evidence”.
`
`CyWee has offered no evidence that the exhibit is a document
`
`that would qualify as evidence.
`
`
`
`FRE 1006 — On the telephone conference of July 26, 2019,
`
`CyWee indicated its intent to rely on Ex. 2018 as a summary of
`
`evidence under FRE 1006. FRE 1006, however, requires that
`
`the summarized evidence be “voluminous”, such that it cannot
`
`be conveniently examined in court. Here, CyWee is not
`
`summarizing evidence, but its own arguments (for example, by
`
`presenting legal conclusions in dispute like “Admitted RPI
`
`Relationship” and “Party is time-barred”). Furthermore,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`underlying evidence providing basic facts, like dates of service,
`
`is neither “voluminous” nor inconvenient to examine by the
`
`PTAB.
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. 42.53(a) — to the extent Ex. 2018 represents the
`
`statement of a person, it is not in the form of an affidavit or
`
`declaration (i.e., it is not signed under oath).
`
`
`
`FRE 701 and 702 — to the extent Ex. 2018 represents the
`
`statement of a person, it by a person that has not been qualified
`
`to provide opinions concerning the legal conclusions found in
`
`Ex. 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: Friday, July 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/ (RN 49,003)
`Matthew A. Smith
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`1100 Alma St., Ste 109
`Menlo Park, CA
`(202) 669-6207
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner Google LLC’s
`
`Objections to Exhibit 2018 was served by electronic mail on Friday, July 26, 2019,
`
`on all counsel of record at the USPTO having the following addresses:
`
`Counsel for CyWee:
`Jay Kesan
`
`jay@jaykesan.com;
`Cecil Key
`
`cecil@keyiplaw.com
`Ari Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com;
`Michael Shore
`mshore@ShoreChan.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`James R. Sobieraj jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`Andrea Shoffstall ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`
`PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`Counsel for LG:
`Collin Park
`Andrew Devkar
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`MLB_CyweevsLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`
`HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
` Date: Friday, July 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/ (RN 49,003)
`
`
`
`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
