`____________________________________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`