UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`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 in Paper 31, titled “PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTION
`
`TO THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ROY (EX1002),” submitted on December
`
`16, 2021, and to Ex. 2015, submitted on December 20, 2021. 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
`No exhibit number – evidence
`objected to provided within
`Paper 31. For example, UNM’s
`Paper 31, titled “PATENT
`OWNER’S OBJECTION TO
`THE EXPERT REPORT OF
`DR. ROY (EX1002),” purports
`to quote from Ex. 2014, which
`UNM has described as
`“[e]xcerpts from 12-06-21
`rough draft depo transcript of
`
`Objections
`
`Incomplete, Irrelevant, Misleading,
`Authenticity (FRE 106, 401, 403, 901):
`On its face, the rough deposition transcript of
`Dr. Roy 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.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Sumit Roy, Ph.D.” Paper 28,
`56. However, the portions of
`the rough transcript reproduced
`and quoted in Paper 31 do not
`appear in Ex. 2014. For
`example, Ex. 2014 appears to
`include only pages 1, 71, and
`72 of the Dr. Roy’s rough
`deposition transcript, yet
`UNM’s Paper 31 reproduces
`and relies on what it asserts are
`pages 57-58, 68-69, 79-80,
`106, and 109-110 of Ex. 2014,
`but instead appear to be other
`portions of Dr. Roy’s rough
`deposition transcript not
`included in Ex. 2014. See
`Paper 31 at 2-6. Accordingly,
`Paper 31 includes new
`evidence not submitted as an
`exhibit, notwithstanding the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`42.63(a).
`Ex. 2015, which UNM
`represents is the “Deposition
`
`Accordingly, UNM has not shown that the
`uncertified transcript of Dr. Roy, including the
`newly-submitted portions within Paper 31,
`presents a true and correct account of Dr. Roy’s
`testimony, and therefore the portions of the
`uncertified transcript contained within Paper 31
`are irrelevant, misleading, and lack 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.
`
`Incomplete, Irrelevant, Misleading,
`Authenticity (FRE 106, 401, 403, 901):
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Transcript of Sumit Roy, Ph.D.
`dated 12-06-21”
`
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On its face, Ex. 2015 purports to be the Dec. 6,
`2021 deposition transcript of Dr. Roy. Ex.
`2015, 1. However, the deposition transcript
`submitted as Ex. 2015 has not been read and
`signed by the witness, as required by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53(f)(5), and therefore does not account
`for any changes the witness may provide. See
`Ex. 2015, 31 (references pages 114-117 for
`witness changes and signature). Accordingly,
`UNM has not shown that this unverified
`transcript of Dr. Roy presents a true and correct
`account of Dr. Roy’s testimony, and therefore
`the portions of the unverified transcript are
`irrelevant, misleading, and lack authenticity
`under FRE 401, 403, and 901, respectively.
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on December 23, 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 address of record.
`
`Dated: December 23, 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
`
`
`
`- 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
