`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WALMART INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SERVED BY PATENT OWNER IN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Walmart Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`objects as follows to the admissibility of the supplemental evidence served by
`
`Patent Owner Caravan Canopy International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) on January 14,
`
`2021. The applicable rules specifically provide that “[t]he Board may exclude or
`
`give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to
`
`identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(5). Petitioner specifically objects to Patent Owner’s failure to
`
`specifically describe the relevance of its exhibits and Patent Owner’s failure to
`
`identify specific portions of evidence that support its challenge. Petitioner
`
`maintains its objections previously served on December 30, 2020 regarding the
`
`Declaration of Lance Rake (Ex. 2014). Petitioner further objects to the
`
`admissibility of evidence as follows.
`
`Declaration of Lance Rake
`
`Evidence
`Ex. 2028 – First Supplemental
`
`Objections
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The exhibit
`contains expert testimony that does not
`disclose the underlying facts or data on
`which the opinion is based. Mr. Rake
`has provided insufficient description or
`explanation of his “seven example
`projects involving mechanical
`engineering” or his involvement, or
`any relevance to the subject matter of
`this case.
`
`FRE 702/703 (Unreliable Expert
`Testimony): The exhibit contains
`statements and opinions that are not
`admissible under FRE 702 or 703. For
`
`2
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`Objections
`example, the witness lacks specialized
`knowledge in the relevant field of art
`(mechanical engineering) that will help
`the trier of fact to understand the
`evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
`Further, the exhibit fails to identify
`facts or data supporting the witness’s
`conclusory testimony, and that
`testimony thus is not based on
`sufficient facts or data. Further the
`testimony is not the product of reliable
`principles and methods, and the
`witness fails to reliably apply the
`principles and methods of the facts of
`the case.
`
`
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit includes
`information regarding “seven example
`projects involving mechanical
`engineering” that is not relevant to any
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit includes
`information whose probative value to
`any ground upon which trial was
`instituted is substantially outweighed
`by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`confusing the issues, undue delay,
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ David A. Reed /
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the date below copies of this
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SERVED BY PATENT
`
`OWNER IN INTER PARTES REVIEW were served electronically via e-mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`Kyle W. Kellar
`KKellar@lrrc.com
`
`Jason C. Martone
`Jmartone@lrrc.com
`
`Sami I. Schilly
`SSchilly@lrrc.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/ David A. Reed /
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`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
