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 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 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 Response filed in IPR2019-131 on
`
`July 22, 2019. These objections are timely filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1).
`
`Evidence
`
`Ex. 2011
`(Definition of “encryption”
`from Techopedia)
`
`Ex. 2012
`(Definition of
`“cryptographic” from
`Academic Press Dictionary
`of Science and Technology)
`
`Ex. 2013
`(Excerpt from Applied
`Cryptography: Protocols,
`Algorithms, and Source
`Code in C)
`
`Objections
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2011 does not bear
`a publication date. The only date that appears on
`the face of the exhibit, July 22, 2019, is several
`years after the asserted priority date of the
`Challenged Claims; 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 2011
`is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`confusing the issues.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2011 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 2012 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 2012 is
`substantially outweighed by a danger of
`confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: To the extent that Patent Owner is
`attempting to use Exhibit 2013 for the truth of the
`matters asserted therein, Exhibit 2013 is hearsay,
`and as no hearsay exception applies, it is
`inadmissible.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2013 is not self-
`authenticating under FRE 902, and Patent Owner
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Ex. 2014
`(Excerpt from Wireless
`Communications and
`Networks)
`
`Ex. 2015
`(Excerpt from CNSS
`Glossary)
`
`Ex. 2016
`(Excerpt from NIST
`Glossary)
`
`Ex. 2017
`(Security Analysis of
`Zigbee)
`
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that it is what Patent Owner says it is.
`Patent Owner has previously submitted this
`excerpt from Wireless Communications and
`Networks as evidence (Exhibit 2008).
`Accordingly, Petitioners restate and incorporate
`herein by reference their objections previously
`raised in Paper No. 15.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2015 is dated in
`2015, 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 2015 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2016 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 2016 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`Furthermore, Patent Owner has previously
`submitted, as evidence, a copy of the NIST
`Glossary which contains the excerpt in Exhibit
`2016. See Exhibit 2005, at 57. Accordingly, any
`probative value associated with Exhibit 2016 is
`substantially outweighed by a danger of
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2017 is dated in
`2017, 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 2017 is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 802: Patent Owner apparently is attempting
`to use Exhibit 2017 for the truth of the matters
`asserted therein. See Response at 16. Exhibit
`2017 is thus hearsay, and as no hearsay exception
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Ex. 2018
`(Bluetooth Specification
`v2.1 + EDR)
`
`Ex. 2019
`(Definition of
`“authentication” from
`Techopedia)
`
`Ex. 2020
`(Definition of “GUI” from
`Techopedia)
`
`applies, it is inadmissible.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2017 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: Patent Owner has previously
`submitted this version of the Bluetooth
`specification as evidence (Exhibit 2006).
`Accordingly, any probative value associated with
`Exhibit 2018 is substantially outweighed by a
`danger of needlessly presenting cumulative
`evidence.
`FRE 401, 402, 403: Exhibit 2019 is not relevant
`to this proceeding, as it is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Response. Furthermore, Exhibit 2019
`does not bear a publication date. The only date
`that appears on the face of the exhibit, July 22,
`2019, is several years after the asserted priority
`date of the Challenged Claims; 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 2019 is substantially outweighed by
`a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2019 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 2020 does not bear
`a publication date. The only date that appears on
`the face of the exhibit, July 22, 2019, is several
`years after the asserted priority date of the
`Challenged Claims; 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 2020
`is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`Ex. 2022
`(Definition of “along with”
`from Merriam-Webster)
`
`confusing the issues.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2020 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 2022 is not relevant
`to this proceeding, as it is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Response. Furthermore, Exhibit 2022
`does not bear a publication date. The only date
`that appears on the face of the exhibit, July 22,
`2019, is several years after the asserted priority
`date of the Challenged Claims; 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 2022 is substantially outweighed by
`a danger of confusing the issues.
`FRE 901, 902: Exhibit 2022 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: July 29, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / T. Vann Pearce, Jr. /
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Panasonic
`Corporation of North America and
`Panasonic Corporation
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 Response was served on
`
`July 29, 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. /
`
`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
