`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and
`ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`IPR2021-00375
`
`Patent 8,265,096 B2
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioners Qualcomm Incorporated and
`
`ZyXEL Communications Corporation respectfully assert the following objections
`
`to the evidence proffered with UNM’s Response and Motion to Amend submitted
`
`on December 7, 2014. These objections are being provided within five business
`
`days of service of the evidence to which the objection is directed, and are thus
`
`timely pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)
`
`apply to these proceedings according to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a), and
`
`these rules form the basis of the objections contained herein.
`
`Ex. Number and UNM’s
`Description
`2014: Excerpts from 12-06-21
`rough draft depo transcript of
`Sumit Roy, Ph.D.
`
`Objections
`
`Incomplete, Irrelevant, Misleading,
`Authenticity (FRE 106, 401, 403, 901):
`On its face, this document states: “A
`UNCERTIFIED ROUGH DRAFT
`TRANSCRIPT is not the OFFICIAL
`CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT and may not be
`cited or quoted as the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED
`TRANSCRIPT in any proceedings. THIS IS
`NOT PERMITTED TO BE USED AS A
`REPLACEMENT FOR THE OFFICIAL
`CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT.” Ex. 2014, 1.
`Accordingly, UNM has not shown that this
`uncertified transcript presents a true and correct
`account of Dr. Roy’s testimony, and therefore
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`the uncertified transcript is irrelevant,
`misleading, and lacks authenticity under FRE
`401, 403, and 901, respectively, and further
`does not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(6).
`In addition, the limited excerpts provide an
`incomplete characterization of Dr. Roy’s
`testimony.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Jonathan I. Detrixhe/
`Lead Counsel
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe (Reg. No. 68,556)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jonah D. Mitchell (pro hac vice
`admission pending)
`Christine M. Morgan (pro hac vice
`admission pending)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jmitchell@reedsmith.com
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cmorgan@reedsmith.com
`
`Peter J. Chassman (Reg. No. 38,841)
`Reed Smith LLP
`811 Main Street
`Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: 713.469.3800
`Fax: 713.469.3899
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on December 14, 2021, a complete copy of Petitioners’ objections to evidence
`
`was filed electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s PTABE2E
`
`System and provided, via electronic service, to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence e-mail address of record.
`
`Dated: December 14, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/ Jonathan I. Detrixhe /
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe (Reg. No. 68,556)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`- 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
