UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. & Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. & Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2020-00337
`Patent 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Packet
`Intelligence LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely objects to evidence submitted by Juniper
`Networks, Inc. & Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioners”) in this proceeding. Patent
`Owner may move to exclude the challenged exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`unless Petitioners provide evidence curing the objections identified by Patent Owner
`below.
`
`II. Specific Objections
`A. Exhibit 1006 - Declaration of Dr. Jon B. Weissman
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1006 under Federal Rules of Evidence
`(“FRE”) 701-705 and 802 because Dr. Weissman has not been made available for
`deposition, and Patent Owner reserves the right to raise any additional objections
`that become apparent from his deposition at that time if he is made available for
`deposition.
`
`B. Exhibit 1010 – RFC 1945- Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1010 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`1945. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1010
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 1945. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1010
`
`1
`
`
`
`under FRE 802 as containing hearsay that does not fall within any applicable
`exceptions.
`
`C. Exhibit 1026 - Chart comparing Riddle’s Claims 1, 8, and 11 to ’864
`Provisional
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1026 as an attempt to circumvent the petition
`word count limit of 37 CFR § 42.24. See 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at
`44 (“Claim charts submitted as part of a petition, motion, patent owner preliminary
`response, patent owner response, opposition, or reply count towards applicable word
`count limits…”).
`
`D. Exhibit 1032 - PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, The
`Wall Street Journal, April 15, 1996
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1032 under FRE 802 as containing hearsay
`that does not fall within any applicable exceptions. Patent Owner also objects to
`Exhibit 1032 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not produced any evidence
`“sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” FRE
`901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit
`1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1032 is a true and correct copy of a document
`downloaded from the internet, not that it was actually published in the Wall Street
`Journal at the relevant time. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation
`that would demonstrate that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as
`to whether Exhibit 1032 is a true and correct copy of what it purports to be.
`
`E. Exhibit 1033 - Gillin-Computer World May 13, 1996
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1033 under FRE 802 as containing hearsay
`that does not fall within any applicable exceptions. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit
`
`2
`
`
`
`1033 under FRE 106 for failing to introduce the document in its entirety. Patent
`Owner also objects to Exhibit 1033 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have not
`produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1033 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it was actually
`published in Computer World at the relevant time. Furthermore, Petitioners have
`provided no foundation that would demonstrate that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has
`firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1033 is a true and correct copy of what it
`purports to be.
`
`
`F. Exhibit 1034 – Sneider - The Christian Science Monitor
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1034 under FRE 802 as containing hearsay
`that does not fall within any applicable exceptions. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit
`1034 under FRE 106 for failing to introduce the document in its entirety – for
`example, page 2 of the document refers to an illustration, but no illustration is
`present. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1034 under FRE 901 because
`Petitioners have not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the
`item is what the proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a
`declaration as Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1034
`is a true and correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it
`was actually published in the Christian Science Monitor at the relevant time.
`Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate that
`
`3
`
`
`
`the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1034 is a
`true and correct copy of what it purports to be.
`
`G. Exhibit 1035 - PointCast Inc. 1998 SEC Filings
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1035 under FRE 802 as containing hearsay
`that does not fall within any applicable exceptions.
`
`H. Exhibit 1037 - RFC 765 File Transfer Protocol
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1037 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1037 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`765. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1037
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 765.
`
`I. Exhibit 1038 - RFC 791 Internet Protocol
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1038 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1038 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`791. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1038
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 791.
`
`4
`
`
`
`J. Exhibit 1039 - RFC 793 Transmission Control Protocol
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1039 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1039 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`793. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1039
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 793.
`
`K. Exhibit 1040 - RFC 1543 Instructions to RFC Authors
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1040 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1040 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`1543. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1040
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 1543.
`
`L. Exhibit 1041 - RFC 2026 The Internet Standards Process-Revision 3
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1041 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1041 is a true and
`
`5
`
`
`
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`2026. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1041
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 2026.
`
`M. Exhibit 1042 - RFC 2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol-HTTP1.1
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1042 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually RFC
`2616. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would demonstrate
`that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether Exhibit 1042
`is a true and correct copy of RFC 2616.
`
`N. Exhibit 1043 - International Standard ISO IEC 7498
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1043 under FRE 901 because Petitioners have
`not produced any evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`proponent claims it is.” FRE 901(a). While Petitioners submitted a declaration as
`Exhibit 1083 in support, Exhibit 1083 merely claims that Exhibit 1043 is a true and
`correct copy of a document downloaded from the internet, not that it is actually ISO
`IEC 7498. Furthermore, Petitioners have provided no foundation that would
`demonstrate that the Exhibit 1083 declarant has firsthand knowledge as to whether
`Exhibit 1043 is a true and correct copy of ISO IEC 7498.
`
`6
`
`
`
`O. Exhibit 1044 - Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1945
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1044 under FRE 701-705 and 802 because
`Christopher Butler has not been made available for deposition, and Patent Owner
`reserves the right to raise any additional objections that become apparent from his
`deposition at that time if he is made available for deposition.
`
`P. Exhibit 1045 - Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1889
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1045 under FRE 701-705 and 802 because
`Christopher Butler has not been made available for deposition, and Patent Owner
`reserves the right to raise any additional objections that become apparent from his
`deposition at that time if he is made available for deposition.
`
`Q. Exhibit 1046 - Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 2326
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1046 under FRE 701-705 and 802 because
`Christopher Butler has not been made available for deposition, and Patent Owner
`reserves the right to raise any additional objections that become apparent from his
`deposition at that time if he is made available for deposition.
`
`R. Exhibit 1047 - Chart Comparing Disclosures of Yu and 859 Provisional
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1047 as an attempt to circumvent the petition
`word count limit of 37 CFR § 42.24. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide at 44 (“Claim charts submitted as part of a petition, motion, patent owner
`preliminary response, patent owner response, opposition, or reply count towards
`applicable word count limits…”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`S. Exhibit 1048 - Chart comparing Yu's Claim 1 to '859 Provisional
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1048 as an attempt to circumvent the petition
`word count limit of 37 CFR § 42.24. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide at 44 (“Claim charts submitted as part of a petition, motion, patent owner
`preliminary response, patent owner response, opposition, or reply count towards
`applicable word count limits…”).
`
`T. Exhibit 1081 - Claim Terms That Third-Parties Previously Proposed
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1081 as an attempt to circumvent the petition
`word count limit of 37 CFR § 42.24. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide at 44 (“Claim charts submitted as part of a petition, motion, patent owner
`preliminary response, patent owner response, opposition, or reply count towards
`applicable word count limits…”).
`
`U. Exhibit 1082 - Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the 725 Patent
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1082 as an attempt to circumvent the petition
`word count limit of 37 CFR § 42.24. See November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice
`Guide at 44 (“Claim charts submitted as part of a petition, motion, patent owner
`preliminary response, patent owner response, opposition, or reply count towards
`applicable word count limits…”).
`
`
`
`Dated: September 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /R. Allan Bullwinkel/
`
`R. Allan Bullwinkel (Reg. No. 77,630)
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), a copy of the
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(B)(1) was served via email to lead and backup
`counsel of record for Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Joseph F. Edell
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`joe.edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`Adam A. Allgood
`Fisch Sigler LLP
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`James R. Batchelder
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`
`Mark D. Rowland
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`
`Andrew Radsch
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`By: /R. Allan Bullwinkel/
`
`R. Allan Bullwinkel (Reg. No. 77,630)
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC
`
`Dated: September 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
