UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`___________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01265
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`____________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`___________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01265
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`____________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2020-01265 (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444)
`
`
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) hereby objects to the following
`
`evidence that was submitted by ParkerVision, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) with
`
`the sur-reply (Paper 26) in the above-captioned proceeding. In accordance with 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), these objections are being timely filed within five (5) business
`
`days of service of the evidence submitted with Patent Owner’s sur-reply, which was
`
`filed and served on September 14, 2021.
`
`A. Exhibit 2022
`Intel objects to Exhibit 2022 as not being compliant with 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Exhibit 2022 accompanies the sur-reply and is relied upon in the sur-reply. (Sur-
`
`reply, 18, 21 (citing Ex. 2022).). However, Exhibit 2022 is new evidence other than
`
`a deposition transcript of the cross-examination of the reply witness. § 42.23(b) (“A
`
`sur-reply … may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition
`
`transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness”). Page 9 of Exhibit 2022
`
`introduces further new evidence, citing and reproducing a portion of a reference
`
`identified as “Thomas L. Floyd, Principles of Electric Circuits, Fifth Edition,
`
`(Prentice-Hall, Inc.), 1997. Ex. 2024.” This reference was not filed as an exhibit in
`
`this proceeding, but if filed with the sur-reply, it would also have been new evidence
`
`not compliant with § 42.23(b).
`
`To the extent PO asserts that it relied on Exhibit 2022 only to impeach Dr.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2020-01265 (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444)
`Subramanian at his deposition, Intel further objects to Exhibit 2022 as being
`
`improper impeachment evidence. As mentioned above, the sur-reply cites to Exhibit
`
`2022 for its substance. (Sur-reply, 18, 21 (citing Ex. 2022).) Moreover, although
`
`pages 7, 24, and 25 of Exhibit 2022 include apparent excerpts of Dr. Subramanian’s
`
`reply declaration (only the excerpt on page 7 is identified as such), they are mere
`
`reproductions with no apparent impeachment purpose. The remainder of Exhibit
`
`2022 is outside the scope of Dr. Subramanian’s reply declaration and has no proper
`
`impeachment purpose. Exhibit 2022 likewise improperly raises issues outside the
`
`scope of the reply. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised
`
`in the corresponding reply”).
`
`Intel further objects to Exhibit 2022 as being hearsay, irrelevant, lacking
`
`foundation, and assuming facts not in evidence. Exhibit 2022 contains factual
`
`assertions and/or technical analysis without identifying its source(s). For example,
`
`citations on pages 7 and 9 account for only portions of the information on those
`
`pages. Citations appearing on pages 23-25 are embedded within excerpts of other
`
`documents and do not identify the sources of the excerpts themselves. No other
`
`sources are identified in Exhibit 2022. Such unattributed information is irrelevant
`
`and consideration would be unfairly prejudicial to Intel. To the extent that this
`
`unattributed information constitutes expert opinions, Exhibit 2022 also does not
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2020-01265 (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444)
`disclose the identity or credentials of the expert(s) who provided those opinions.
`
`Exhibit 2022 is also incomplete and inaccurate. As identified in Dr.
`
`Subramanian’s deposition, Exhibit 2022 contains numerous errors and
`
`inconsistencies. (See, e.g., Ex. 2028, 40:5-24, 50:3-51:9, 68:15-70:3.) As one
`
`example, page 21 says “Recall that the energy transferred to a 1 µF capacitor in 25
`
`ns is UC = 0.5 pJ,” suggesting a reference to an earlier portion of the document.
`
`However, there is no other portion of Exhibit 2022 that discusses the amount of
`
`energy transferred to a 1 µF capacitor in 25 ns. (Id., 68:15-70:3.) As another
`
`example, page 13 indicates that the sum of 0.02 and 0.0005 is 0.02005 rather than
`
`the correct value of 0.0205. (Id., 50:3-51:9.) Similarly, page 8 includes a series of
`
`mathematical errors based on an incorrect starting value for the voltage (0.0001 V
`
`rather than 0.001 V). (Id., 40:5-24.) Consideration of such incomplete and
`
`inaccurate information would be prejudicial to Intel.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2028
`Exhibit 2028 is the deposition transcript of Dr. Subramanian. Intel objects to
`
`Exhibit 2028 to the extent that it relies on Exhibit 2022 and other documents that
`
`were marked for the deposition but not filed as exhibits in this proceeding. (Ex.
`
`2028, 25:20-80:3 (discussing Ex. 2022), 167:19-175:24, 214:22-217:11 (discussing
`
`what was marked for the deposition as Ex. 2023 (not filed)), 186:21-214:21
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2020-01265 (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444)
`(discussing what was marked for the deposition as Ex. 2026 (not filed)), 177:10-
`
`183:6 (discussing what was marked for the deposition as Ex. 2027 (not filed)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Grant K. Rowan/
`
`Grant K. Rowan
`Registration No. 41,278
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2020-01265 (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on September 17, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy
`of Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted with Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`to be served via email at the following correspondence address:
`
`
`• Jason S. Charkow (jcharkow@daignaultiyer.com)
`• Chandran B. Iyer (cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com)
`• Stephanie R. Mandir (smandir@ daignaultiyer.com)
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Brian J. Lambson/
`Brian J. Lambson
`Registration No. 72,570
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
