`
`Paper No. 55
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`
` Case IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606, IPR2018-01607
`Patent 7,620,800
`__________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC’S
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`U.S Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner DirectStream, LLC (“Patent Owner”) files and serves the
`
`following objections to evidence that Petitioner Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) served on November 26, 2019. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. 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. Exbibits 1074, 1077, 1079
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1074, 1077, and 1079 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. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401-403. Moreover, Petitioner fails to provide any attempt to authenticate these
`
`documents in any manner or as a bases of an expert’s opinion testimony, including
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 901, 702, or 703. Additionally, these exhibits are hearsay to
`
`the extent Petitioner attempts to rely on them to prove the truth of any matter
`
`described therein. Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`U.S Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1074, 1077, and 1079 as containing
`
`new evidence and argument that could and should have been raised in Petitioner’s
`
`Petition. See e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a); 42.23(b).
`
`2. Exhibit 1076
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1076 as containing new evidence and
`
`argument that could and should have been raised in Petitioner’s Petition. See e.g.,
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a); 42.23(b). Here, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Stone, purportedly
`
`submits a “reply” declaration, when in fact, the statements in paragraphs 2-27 all
`
`could have been raised in his original declaration submitted in this matter. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit to the extent the introduction of new material
`
`and opinions lack foundation, are not relevant, contain hearsay, and will cause
`
`undue prejudice in the inability of Patent Owner to provide rebuttal expert
`
`testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403, 801, 802.
`
`3. Exhibit 1075
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1075, 65:12-17 as the question was
`
`directing the witness to offer a legal conclusion. See EX1075, 65:15 (“Objection to
`
`form” raised in deposition).
`
`4. Exhibit 1078
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`U.S Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1078, 65:19-66:18 as the deposition
`
`question asked at 65:19-20 was vague, ambiguous, and called for a speculative
`
`answer. 1078, 65:21 (“Objection to form” raised in deposition).
`
`5. Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner also objects to any paragraphs in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the extent they rely on the aforementioned objected to
`
`exhibits.
`
`
`
`Date: December 2, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan, Reg. No. 45, 964
`achan@shorechan.com
`Joseph F. DePumpo, Reg. No. 38,124
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 330
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Sean Hsu, Reg. No. 69,477
`shsu@jvllp.com
`Rajkumar Vinnakota *
`kvinnakota@jvllp.com
`G. Donald Puckett *
`dpuckett@jvllp.com
`JANIK VINNAKOTA LLP
`8111 Lyndon B. Johnson Fwy #790
`Dallas, TX 75251
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01605, -01606, -01607
`U.S Patent 7,620,800
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Telephone: (214) 390-9999
`Fax: (214) 888-0219
`* Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`DirectStream, LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned hereby certifies that the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO
`
`EVIDENCE was served electronically via e-mail on December 2, 2019 to the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`Date: December 2, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`Reg. No. 45,964
`Phone: (214) 593-9118
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
