UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioners hereby object to the following
`
`evidence submitted by Patent Owner with its Preliminary Response filed in
`
`IPR2019-131 on January 30, 2019. These objections are timely filed pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 2001
`(AIRcable User Manual)
`
`Ex. 2002
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,398,891)
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, 403: As applied by Patent
`Owner, Exhibit 2001 is not relevant to this
`proceeding, because it is not relied upon by
`Petitioner as prior art to the Challenged Claims
`and it purports to describe a device that has no
`apparent relation to the ’698 Patent or to any of
`the prior art or arguments raised by Petitioner.
`For the same reasons, any probative value
`associated with Exhibit 2001 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: Patent Owner apparently is attempting
`to use Exhibit 2001 for the truth of the matters
`asserted therein. See Preliminary Response at
`40. Exhibit 2001 is thus hearsay, and as no
`hearsay exception applies, it is inadmissible.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2001 is not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902, and Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that it is what Patent Owner says it is.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: As applied by Patent
`Owner, Exhibit 2002 is not relevant to this
`proceeding, because it is not relied upon by
`Petitioner as prior art to the Challenged Claims
`and has no apparent relation to the ’698 Patent or
`to any of the prior art or arguments raised by
`Petitioner. For the same reasons, any probative
`value associated with Exhibit 2002 is thus
`substantially outweighed by a danger of
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Ex. 2003
`(Silicon Labs UG103.10)
`
`Ex. 2004
`(IEEE Part 15.4)
`
`Ex. 2005
`(NIST Glossary)
`
`confusing the issues.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2003 is undated;
`accordingly, Patent Owner has not established its
`relevance to any material issues in this
`proceeding. For the same reasons, any probative
`value associated with Exhibit 2003 is
`substantially outweighed by a danger of
`confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: To the extent that Patent Owner is
`attempting to use Exhibit 2003 for the truth of
`the matters asserted therein, Exhibit 2003 is
`hearsay, and as no hearsay exception applies, it is
`inadmissible.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2003 is not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902, and Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that it is what Patent Owner says it is.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2004 is not relevant
`to this proceeding, as it is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response. Furthermore, it
`is dated no earlier than 2011, several years after
`the asserted priority date of the Challenged
`Claims, and is thus irrelevant. For the same
`reasons, any probative value associated with
`Exhibit 2004 is substantially outweighed by a
`danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: To the extent that Patent Owner
`attempts to use Exhibit 2004 for the truth of the
`matters asserted therein, it is hearsay, and as no
`hearsay exception applies, it is inadmissible.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2005 is dated in
`2013, several years after the asserted priority date
`of the Challenged Claims, and is thus irrelevant.
`For the same reasons, any probative value
`associated with Exhibit 2005 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Ex. 2007
`(District Court Order)
`
`Ex. 2008
`(Wireless Communications
`and Networks)
`
`FRE 401, 402, 403: For the reasons explained
`more fully in Petitioners’ Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10), the
`District Court’s ruling that the Challenged
`Claims are unpatentable under Section 101,
`which Patent Owner currently is appealing, is
`irrelevant to this inter partes review proceeding.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Patent Owner cites to
`Exhibit 2008 for its characterization of
`Bluetooth; however, both Petitioners and Patent
`Owner have submitted portions of the Bluetooth
`specifications as evidence (Exhibits 1017, 1020,
`2006). Accordingly, any probative value
`associated with Exhibit 2004 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: Patent Owner apparently is attempting
`to use Exhibit 2008 for the truth of the matters
`asserted therein. See Preliminary Response at
`40. Exhibit 2008 is thus hearsay, and as no
`hearsay exception applies, it is inadmissible.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2008 is not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902, and Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that it is what Patent Owner says it is.
`
`Dated: May 13, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / T. Vann Pearce, Jr. /
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Panasonic
`Corporation of North America and
`Panasonic Corporation
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was
`
`served on May 13, 2019 via electronic service:
`
`John J. Edmonds
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Stephen F. Schlather
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`1616 S. Voss Road, Suite 125
`Houston, TX 77057
`
`Email: pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Email: sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`/ T. Vann Pearce, Jr. /
`
`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
