`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`Case IPR2019-01035
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`_________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01035
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner hereby submits the following
`
`objections to the evidence Patent Owner filed with its Patent Owner Response, filed
`
`February 21, 2020. Petitioner’s objections apply equally to Patent Owner’s reliance
`
`on these Exhibits, including in any subsequently-filed documents in this proceeding.
`
`These objections are being filed within five business days of service of the evidence
`
`to which the objections are directed. Petitioner objects to the following Patent
`
`Owner Exhibits:
`
`• 2012 (“Wiegand & Marpe, Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic
`
`Coding in the H.264/ A VC Video Compression Standard (IEEE
`
`Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2003)”);
`
`• 2013 (“IITU-T Rec. H.262 (1995 E) (Information Technology – Generic
`
`Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information)”).
`
`I.
`
`Objections to Exhibits 2012
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2012 under Rules 901 and 902 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence (“Rules”) as not having been properly authenticated by the Patent
`
`Owner, and under Rule 403 as unreliable because it is not a true and accurate copy
`
`of the IEEE journal that Patent Owner purports it to be. While the document’s cover
`
`does include the text “2003,” there is no indication anywhere on the exhibit
`
`establishing when, where, and how it published. Indeed, this document appears to
`
`be a mere draft of an article for a journal, and lacks the information necessary to
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01035
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`determine that it is what it is claimed to be, including a volume number, issue
`
`number, or the month it was published. If Patent Owner relies on Exhibit 2012 for
`
`the truth of the information asserted in this exhibit, it is inadmissible hearsay under
`
`Rules 801 and 802 because the exhibit is not a true and accurate article from an IEEE
`
`Journal as Patent Owner purports, and no exception applies.
`
`II. Objections to Exhibit 2013
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2013 as not conforming to the requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(d). Exhibit 2013 is duplicative of Exhibit 2009, which has already
`
`been filed, and Exhibit 2013 is confusingly stamped as “Exhibit 2009.” Petitioner
`
`further objects to this exhibit under Rules 401-403 as irrelevant because Patent
`
`Owner does not rely on this exhibit in its Patent Owner Response and this exhibit is
`
`duplicative of Exhibit 2009.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01035
`Patent No. 9,769,477
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 28, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`to be served electronically, as agreed by the parties, upon Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`at the following address of record:
`
`pwang@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`kshum@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`rak_realtimedata@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi /
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
