`
`
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`Issued: November 17, 2009
`Filed: April 9, 2007
`Inventors: Jon M. Huppenthal, David E. Caliga
`MULTI-ADAPTIVE PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES
`FOR ENHANCING PARALLELISM AND PERFORMANCE OF
`COMPUTATIONAL FUNCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2018-01605, 01606, and 01607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Nos. 2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`(U.S. Pat. No. 7,620,800)
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) files and serves the
`
`
`
`following objections to evidence that Patent Owner DirectStream, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) served on July 26, 2019. 37 C.F.R. § 42.120. These objections are timely
`
`because they are served within five business days of service of the evidence to
`
`which the objections are directed. See id. (“Once a trial has been instituted, any
`
`objection must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which
`
`the objection is directed.”).
`
`1. Exhibits 2066-2074, 2076, 2078-2100, 2102-2104, 2106-2107, 2110-
`
`2111, 2113-2134, 2140-2152, 2156, 2163-2165, and 2170
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2066-2074, 2076, 2078-2100, 2102-2104, 2106-
`
`2107, 2110-2111, 2113-2134, 2140-2152, 2156, 2163-2165, and 2170 as not being
`
`relevant to any issue on which trial has been instituted, lacking authentication, lacking
`
`foundation, for containing hearsay, and/or causing undue prejudice. For example, the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response does not contain any citations to Exhibits 2066-2068, 2076,
`
`2078-2100, 2106-2107, 2111, 2128, 2140, 2156, 2163-2165, and 2170. Furthermore,
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response does fully cite or discuss at least portions Exhibits 2069,
`
`2102-2104, 2110, 2113-2127, 2129-2134, and 2141-2152, and thus, Petitioners have had
`
`no fair opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s unstated contentions (if any) regarding
`
`the same. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03. Patent Owner also fails to offer any evidence that
`
`any of these exhibits are what Patent Owner claims them to be. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR Nos. 2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`(U.S. Pat. No. 7,620,800)
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`As another example, these exhibits are hearsay to the extent that Patent Owner attempts
`
`to rely on them to prove the truth of any matter described therein. See Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802. Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2065 as an incomplete excerpt of a larger
`
`document. See Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`2. Exhibit 2065, 2075, and 2091
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2065, 2075, and 2091 as not being relevant to
`
`any issue on which trial has been instituted, for containing hearsay, and/or causing
`
`undue prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03, 801, 802.
`
`3. Exhibit 2101
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to Exhibit 2101 as not being relevant to any issue on which
`
`trial has been instituted, lacking foundation, for containing hearsay, and/or causing
`
`undue prejudice. Exhibit 2101 is declaration from John Huppenthal that provides an
`
`irrelevant narrative discussion of his participation in reconfigurable computing. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-03. In addition, at least ¶¶ 27, 80-86 contain statements that are either
`
`based on hearsay or lack of personal knowledge. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03, 801, 802.
`
`Petitioner also objects to any paragraphs in Exhibit 2101 to the extent they rely on the
`
`aforementioned objected to exhibits.
`
`4. Exhibit 2170
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2170 as being cumulative of other exhibits in
`
`evidence. Specifically, Exhibit 2170 is a copy of Exhibit 1007, filed by Petitioner. This
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR Nos. 2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`(U.S. Pat. No. 7,620,800)
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`is made clear by the presence of an exhibit stamp that reads “Petitioner Microsoft
`
`Corporation – Ex. 1007” on the second page of Exhibit 2170. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-03.
`
`5. Exhibits 2112, 2166
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to any paragraphs in Exhibits 2112 and 2166 to the extent
`
`they rely on the aforementioned objected to exhibits.
`
`6. Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Petitioner also objects to any paragraphs in Patent Owner’s Response to the
`
`extent they rely on the aforementioned objected to exhibits.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR Nos. 2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`(U.S. Pat. No. 7,620,800)
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 2, 2019, a copy of the foregoing document
`
`
`
`
`
`has been served via email on the following:
`
`Alfonso Chan, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP (achan@shorechan.com)
`Joseph DePumpo, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP (jdepumpo@shorechan.com)
`Christopher Evans, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP (cevans@shorechan.com)
`
`Sean Hsu, Janik Vinnakota LLP (shsu@jvllp.com)
`G. Donald Puckett, Janik Vinnakota LLP (dpuckett@jvllp.com)
`Rajkumar Vinnakota, Janik Vinnakota LLP (kvinnakota@jvllp.com)
`
`
`
`Dated: August 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/Joseph A. Micallef/
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`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
